James Cameron Hopes For 'AVENGERS Fatigue' While He Makes More Sequels

[Alan Smithee]

JAMES CAMERON Hoping for 'AVENGERS Fatigue'

James Cameron is a fan of the Avengers movie franchise, but hopes the
superhero genre of movies will become out of fashion "pretty soon."

In a press conference reported on by IndieWire, the Avatar director
believes that the success of the superhero genre has stymied other kinds
of movies.

"I'm hoping we'll start getting Avengers fatigue here pretty soon,"
Cameron said. "Not that I don't love the movies. It's just, come on
guys, there are other stories to tell besides hyper-gonadal males
without families doing death-defying things for two hours and wrecking
cities in the process. It's like, oy!"

Cameron is currently writing and directing four Avatar sequels,
producing a new Terminator film as well as the Battle Angel adaptation.

His busy schedule, he admits, makes him not the best judge of the
audience's taste currently, however.

"I would say I don't have a good sense, my finger on the pulse of the
zeitgeist today because I haven't had a TV show or movie out recently",
added Cameron.

"So I don’t know where tastes are going in respect to science fiction."

"Avengers: Infinity War" opens in theaters this Thursday evening.

https://www.newsarama.com/39614-james-cameron-hoping-for-avengers-fatigue-feige-responds.html

[Obveeus]

On 4/25/2018 12:23 AM, Alan Smithee wrote:
> JAMES CAMERON Hoping for 'AVENGERS Fatigue'
>
> James Cameron is a fan of the Avengers movie franchise, but hopes the
> superhero genre of movies will become out of fashion "pretty soon."
>
> In a press conference reported on by IndieWire, the Avatar director
> believes that the success of the superhero genre has stymied other kinds
> of movies.
>
> "I'm hoping we'll start getting Avengers fatigue here pretty soon,"
> Cameron said. "Not that I don't love the movies. It's just, come on
> guys, there are other stories to tell besides hyper-gonadal males
> without families doing death-defying things for two hours and wrecking
> cities in the process. It's like, oy!"
>
> Cameron is currently writing and directing four Avatar sequels,
> producing a new Terminator film as well as the Battle Angel adaptation.
>
> His busy schedule, he admits, makes him not the best judge of the
> audience's taste currently, however.
>
> "I would say I don't have a good sense, my finger on the pulse of the
> zeitgeist today because I haven't had a TV show or movie out recently",
> added Cameron.
>
> "So I don’t know where tastes are going in respect to science fiction."

So, Cameron's theory is that:
1. If he makes something, he knows what audiences like.
2. If he doesn't make something, there is no ability to detect what
audiences like by seeing what else is popular in the world?

[RichA]

On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 00:23:53 UTC-4, Alan Smithee wrote:
> JAMES CAMERON Hoping for 'AVENGERS Fatigue'
>
> James Cameron is a fan of the Avengers movie franchise, but hopes the
> superhero genre of movies will become out of fashion "pretty soon."
>
> In a press conference reported on by IndieWire, the Avatar director
> believes that the success of the superhero genre has stymied other kinds
> of movies.
>
> "I'm hoping we'll start getting Avengers fatigue here pretty soon,"
> Cameron said. "Not that I don't love the movies. It's just, come on
> guys, there are other stories to tell besides hyper-gonadal males
> without families doing death-defying things for two hours and wrecking
> cities in the process. It's like, oy!"
>
> Cameron is currently writing and directing four Avatar sequels,
> producing a new Terminator film as well as the Battle Angel adaptation.

He's operating with the same pure greed mentality that rules the superhero "factory" method of production. Four sequels?

[Your Name]

Four sequels that are far too late in arriving. Avatar was 10 years
ago, everyone has forgotten about it by now, which of course gives a
massive excuse to re-release the movie with a few tweaks (just as
George Lucas did with Star Wars, multiple times). It's the same with
the Tintin movie - far too late to bother making the second one now.

It is five sequels, including the "new Terminator film", if that's not
yet another idiotic reboot.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <pbqvmb$ri6$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>On 2018-04-25 12:34:52 +0000, RichA said:
>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 00:23:53 UTC-4, Alan Smithee wrote:
>>> JAMES CAMERON Hoping for 'AVENGERS Fatigue'
>>>
>>> James Cameron is a fan of the Avengers movie franchise, but hopes the
>>> superhero genre of movies will become out of fashion "pretty soon."
>>>
>>> In a press conference reported on by IndieWire, the Avatar director
>>> believes that the success of the superhero genre has stymied other kinds
>>> of movies.
>>>
>>> "I'm hoping we'll start getting Avengers fatigue here pretty soon,"
>>> Cameron said. "Not that I don't love the movies. It's just, come on
>>> guys, there are other stories to tell besides hyper-gonadal males
>>> without families doing death-defying things for two hours and wrecking
>>> cities in the process. It's like, oy!"
>>>
>>> Cameron is currently writing and directing four Avatar sequels,
>>> producing a new Terminator film as well as the Battle Angel adaptation.
>>
>> He's operating with the same pure greed mentality that rules the
>> superhero "factory" method of production. Four sequels?
>
>Four sequels that are far too late in arriving. Avatar was 10 years

The most higly awaited sequels since Deuce Bigelow II!
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[moviePig]

Cameron may be forgetting that much of AVATAR's enormous repeat-viewing
appeal was its IMAX-3D CGI spectacle. New then, less so now...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Obveeus]

Which might be why he is pushing all new technology to go along with the
next film.

As for the time off between sequels...JURASSIC WORLD was more than a
decade after JURASSIC PARK III and it managed a lowly $1.6billion at the
box office.

[moviePig]

Afaik, his new tech is mainly High Frame Rate, which 1) isn't really
new, 2) had some negative response, and 3) may be unavailable in IMAX.

(And, note that JURASSIC PARK was a bigger tech milestone than AVATAR.)

[Your Name]

Technically Jurassic World is a silly "reboot" of the original, not a
sequel, despite weak attempts to make it seem so. Same with JarJar
Abrams' awful Star Wars "sequels" - they're also simply silly reboots
of the original.

[trotsky]

Perhaps instead of musing "fatigue" he should think about the
disinterest that comes with taking a hundred years to make a sequel.

[Obveeus]

AVATAR 2 is setting new standards for motion capture and 'realistic'
effects. There is also rumor that it might be the first 3D film to hit
theaters without requiring the audience to wear those silly glasses

> (And, note that JURASSIC PARK was a bigger tech milestone than AVATAR.)

In what way was JURASSIC WORLD (the film that too over a decade to show
up as a sequel) more of a tech milestone than AVATAR?

[moviePig]

Such a 'rumor' reminds me of the long-ago spate of 3D comic books
advertised as "you'll see it without glasses". The actual product was
ordinary 2D, with various picture elements leaking over the frame edge.

Meanwhile, imo, both motion-capture and realistic f/x already approach
their limits of perfection too closely for a further revolution.

>> (And, note that JURASSIC PARK was a bigger tech milestone than AVATAR.)
>
> In what way was JURASSIC WORLD (the film that too over a decade to show
> up as a sequel) more of a tech milestone than AVATAR?

JW introduced CGI creatures into cinematic daylight. That famous shot
of Sam Elliott and Laura Dern gazing up in awe mirrored the audience.

[Obveeus]

You seem to be talking about the first film in the series, not the fourth.

[moviePig]

Very much so. (Imo, the fourth's appeal had a lot of retro to it.)

Re sequel-interruptus, I'd look at whether any audience-clamor is for a
continuation of the story or for merely more of the ambiance. I.e., I'm
not sure people are really wondering what happens next on Pandora so
much as wanting again to be transported somewhere (anywhere).

[Obveeus]

The whole point is that the 4th movie took more than a decade to happen
and didn't have any loss of box office momentum as a result of the long
gap between franchise entries.

> Re sequel-interruptus, I'd look at whether any audience-clamor is for a
> continuation of the story or for merely more of the ambiance.  I.e., I'm
> not sure people are really wondering what happens next on Pandora so
> much as wanting again to be transported somewhere (anywhere).

Agreed. People want a story/world they can immerse themselves into and
enjoy. AVATAR did that perfectly and is the top grossing film of
all-time as a result. Given Cameron's track record, there is no good
reason to believe the next film won't do the same.

[moviePig]

Per my "retro" claim, I'd think it actually *gained" 'b.o. momentum'.

>> Re sequel-interruptus, I'd look at whether any audience-clamor is for
>> a continuation of the story or for merely more of the ambiance.  I.e.,
>> I'm not sure people are really wondering what happens next on Pandora
>> so much as wanting again to be transported somewhere (anywhere).
>
> Agreed.  People want a story/world they can immerse themselves into and
> enjoy.  AVATAR did that perfectly and is the top grossing film of
> all-time as a result.  Given Cameron's track record, there is no good
> reason to believe the next film won't do the same.

I'm always hopeful for a new Cameron. What seems to me misguided in
this instance is the plan for four(!) new AVATARs, because I don't see a
Tolkien-strength narrative/mythology bearing the load here. (Otoh, *I*
haven't bothered to check out even the latest STAR WARS...)

[Obveeus]

Yes...gained...after more than a decade off. No reason to think that
AVATAR sequels cannot do the same.

>>> Re sequel-interruptus, I'd look at whether any audience-clamor is for
>>> a continuation of the story or for merely more of the ambiance.
>>> I.e., I'm not sure people are really wondering what happens next on
>>> Pandora so much as wanting again to be transported somewhere (anywhere).
>>
>> Agreed.  People want a story/world they can immerse themselves into
>> and enjoy.  AVATAR did that perfectly and is the top grossing film of
>> all-time as a result.  Given Cameron's track record, there is no good
>> reason to believe the next film won't do the same.
>
> I'm always hopeful for a new Cameron.  What seems to me misguided in
> this instance is the plan for four(!) new AVATARs, because I don't see a
> Tolkien-strength narrative/mythology bearing the load here.

Since you haven't seen the scripts (or even read a bit about the planned
direction) why offer it up as some informed level of thought that there
doesn't exist enough story for 4 films? There are long running film
series that operate on simply doing one script over and over (see all
the horror franchises or Bond film series of FAST * FURIOUS series).

> (Otoh, *I*
> haven't bothered to check out even the latest STAR WARS...)

That would be sad for you, opting for many lesser films while avoiding
that one simply because it was meant to be big entertainment for everyone.

[moviePig]

My reason is that I don't sense that AVATAR reached a zeitgeist status
equivalent to JURASSIC PARK (or JAWS, or THE EXORCIST, among others).
Rather, I feel AVATAR registered as an okay story produced to within an
inch of its life. Afaics, it was the latest in rollercoaster
technology. Accordingly, I think a new AVATAR will draw well if the
reviews of its tech are good, but I don't see how its story (without,
say, a generation of comic-book acolytes) translates into a fan base.
(Admittedly, I'm not sure how STAR WARS managed that.)

>>>> Re sequel-interruptus, I'd look at whether any audience-clamor is
>>>> for a continuation of the story or for merely more of the ambiance.
>>>> I.e., I'm not sure people are really wondering what happens next on
>>>> Pandora so much as wanting again to be transported somewhere
>>>> (anywhere).
>>>
>>> Agreed.  People want a story/world they can immerse themselves into
>>> and enjoy.  AVATAR did that perfectly and is the top grossing film of
>>> all-time as a result.  Given Cameron's track record, there is no good
>>> reason to believe the next film won't do the same.
>>
>> I'm always hopeful for a new Cameron.  What seems to me misguided in
>> this instance is the plan for four(!) new AVATARs, because I don't see
>> a Tolkien-strength narrative/mythology bearing the load here.
>
> Since you haven't seen the scripts (or even read a bit about the planned
> direction) why offer it up as some informed level of thought that there
> doesn't exist enough story for 4 films?  There are long running film
> series that operate on simply doing one script over and over (see all
> the horror franchises or Bond film series of FAST * FURIOUS series).

But I did "see" the old AVATAR script, and, as I've said, I think the
strength of that movie lay in its technology -- which, btw, is a
characteristic of Cameron's ouevre.

>> (Otoh, *I* haven't bothered to check out even the latest STAR WARS...)
>
> That would be sad for you, opting for many lesser films while avoiding
> that one simply because it was meant to be big entertainment for everyone.

Well, no. Each of those 'lesser films' offered me at least the outside
chance of something exceptional. STAR WARS, otoh, has for me become at
best a reliable commodity.

[Obveeus]

So the biggest movie of all time cannot carry an audience, but some lame
horror movie about a woman who throws up in bed can?

> Rather, I feel AVATAR registered as an okay story produced to within an
> inch of its life.  Afaics, it was the latest in rollercoaster
> technology.  Accordingly, I think a new AVATAR will draw well if the
> reviews of its tech are good, but I don't see how its story (without,
> say, a generation of comic-book acolytes) translates into a fan base.
> (Admittedly, I'm not sure how STAR WARS managed that.)

If you are telling a good story (and yes, I know a lot of people here
cannot fathom what a good story is because they think it requires only
original rather than tried and true elements) and doing it well, you can
make a successful movie. The first film did a perfect job of telling
the story of underdogs fighting against overwhelming obstacles and
managing to win...hmmm, the same story as the original STAR WARS.

>>>>> Re sequel-interruptus, I'd look at whether any audience-clamor is
>>>>> for a continuation of the story or for merely more of the ambiance.
>>>>> I.e., I'm not sure people are really wondering what happens next on
>>>>> Pandora so much as wanting again to be transported somewhere
>>>>> (anywhere).
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.  People want a story/world they can immerse themselves into
>>>> and enjoy.  AVATAR did that perfectly and is the top grossing film
>>>> of all-time as a result.  Given Cameron's track record, there is no
>>>> good reason to believe the next film won't do the same.
>>>
>>> I'm always hopeful for a new Cameron.  What seems to me misguided in
>>> this instance is the plan for four(!) new AVATARs, because I don't
>>> see a Tolkien-strength narrative/mythology bearing the load here.
>>
>> Since you haven't seen the scripts (or even read a bit about the
>> planned direction) why offer it up as some informed level of thought
>> that there doesn't exist enough story for 4 films?  There are long
>> running film series that operate on simply doing one script over and
>> over (see all the horror franchises or Bond film series of FAST *
>> FURIOUS series).
>
> But I did "see" the old AVATAR script, and, as I've said, I think the
> strength of that movie lay in its technology -- which, btw, is a
> characteristic of Cameron's ouevre.

So why assume, given his track record, that he cannot achieve the same
again?

>>> (Otoh, *I* haven't bothered to check out even the latest STAR WARS...)
>>
>> That would be sad for you, opting for many lesser films while avoiding
>> that one simply because it was meant to be big entertainment for
>> everyone.
>
> Well, no.  Each of those 'lesser films' offered me at least the outside
> chance of something exceptional.  STAR WARS, otoh, has for me become at
> best a reliable commodity.

You must understand that there are many, many moviegoers who hit the
theater looking for a reliably good commodity, right?

[Your Name]

On 2018-04-26 15:08:53 +0000, Obveeus said:
<snip>
> ... AVATAR did that perfectly and is the top grossing film of all-time
> as a result.
<snip>

That depends on:
- how you measure it (cinema only, or including DVD, etc.)
- whether you "adjust" the amounts to account for inflation
and - what list you read.

[Your Name]

On 2018-04-26 16:58:31 +0000, Obveeus said:
> On 4/26/2018 11:36 AM, moviePig wrote:

<snip>

>> (Otoh, *I* haven't bothered to check out even the latest STAR WARS...)
>
> That would be sad for you, opting for many lesser films while avoiding
> that one simply because it was meant to be big entertainment for
> everyone.

Jar Jar Abrmas' crap are just lazy-ass reboots, by a talentless hack.
They really aren't worth watching.

[moviePig]

Depends, of course, on what made the movie 'big'. AVATAR was a 3D
revelation. They had to pry it out of the IMAXes. (And, afaik, there
weren't the ton of subsequent imitators that there were of EXORCIST.)

Because I think that, this time, he doesn't have the tech fireworks.

>>>> (Otoh, *I* haven't bothered to check out even the latest STAR WARS...)
>>>
>>> That would be sad for you, opting for many lesser films while
>>> avoiding that one simply because it was meant to be big entertainment
>>> for everyone.
>>
>> Well, no.  Each of those 'lesser films' offered me at least the
>> outside chance of something exceptional.  STAR WARS, otoh, has for me
>> become at best a reliable commodity.
>
> You must understand that there are many, many moviegoers who hit the
> theater looking for a reliably good commodity, right?

Sure, but we were talking about my 'sadness' -- re which, don't worry,
my personal 'reliable commodity' is low-to-mid-level horror, and the
hopper is always full.

[Your Name]

On 2018-04-25 04:23:50 +0000, Alan Smithee said:
<snip>

> Cameron is currently writing and directing four Avatar sequels,
> producing a new Terminator film as well as the Battle Angel adaptation.

<snip>

The new "Terminator" film isn't really a full 'reboot' nor a sequel.
It's idiotically going to completely ignore everything that happened
after 'Terminator 2' and continue from that movie instead.

When David Ellison came to me and said, "Let's do another one,"
I said, "All right, but I don't want to have to deal with
reconciling all this [stuff] that happened in between. Can we
just go back to 'Terminator 2' and carry on that timeline?" He
said, "Yeah, that sounds great."

<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/arts/television/james-cameron-amc-series-avatar-terminator.html>

[Obveeus]

Well, true enough that 3D is dying off and hasn't had a better year than
the one AVATAR built. Of course, the theaters haven't closed up and
gone away, yet, so they will presumably still be there to handle the
next AVATAR film.

As for imitators, I'm not sure what films imitated EXORCIST, unless you
are just talking about generic horror/possession genre films. Whatever
the case, I'd think that a big number of imitators would dilute the
income potential, not increase it.

Sight unseen, apparently.

Even looking at films actually shot in 3D, the list is very short.
Almost all 3D is fake 3D done in post editing. The new AVATAR in real
3D filming and an underwater environment will be something new even if
you haven't seen it yet and so discount the odds of it being new.

>>>>> (Otoh, *I* haven't bothered to check out even the latest STAR WARS...)
>>>>
>>>> That would be sad for you, opting for many lesser films while
>>>> avoiding that one simply because it was meant to be big
>>>> entertainment for everyone.
>>>
>>> Well, no.  Each of those 'lesser films' offered me at least the
>>> outside chance of something exceptional.  STAR WARS, otoh, has for me
>>> become at best a reliable commodity.
>>
>> You must understand that there are many, many moviegoers who hit the
>> theater looking for a reliably good commodity, right?
>
> Sure, but we were talking about my 'sadness' -- re which, don't worry,
> my personal 'reliable commodity' is low-to-mid-level horror, and the
> hopper is always full.

Sort of like eating rice cakes and calling it eating cake.

[moviePig]

What I've seen is the room for improvement in 3D and motion-capture,
and, barring changes in our perceptual physiology, there isn't much.
Sure, no-glasses would be cool, but so would a functioning holodeck.

>>>>>> (Otoh, *I* haven't bothered to check out even the latest STAR
>>>>>> WARS...)
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be sad for you, opting for many lesser films while
>>>>> avoiding that one simply because it was meant to be big
>>>>> entertainment for everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Well, no.  Each of those 'lesser films' offered me at least the
>>>> outside chance of something exceptional.  STAR WARS, otoh, has for
>>>> me become at best a reliable commodity.
>>>
>>> You must understand that there are many, many moviegoers who hit the
>>> theater looking for a reliably good commodity, right?
>>
>> Sure, but we were talking about my 'sadness' -- re which, don't worry,
>> my personal 'reliable commodity' is low-to-mid-level horror, and the
>> hopper is always full.
>
> Sort of like eating rice cakes and calling it eating cake.

... only so cake-eaters won't feel bad.

[Alan Smithee]

On 04/26/2018 12:18 AM, moviePig wrote:
> Afaik, his new tech is mainly High Frame Rate, which 1) isn't really
> new, 2) had some negative response, and 3) may be unavailable in IMAX.
>
> (And, note that JURASSIC PARK was a bigger tech milestone than AVATAR.)

JP had a better storyline and cast. Avatar was mostly "show" with little
substance.
Like "TRON" was in its day.

[moviePig]

As it happens, I agree about AVATAR. (And JP, of course, had a killer
plot courtesy of Michael Crichton.) But all three of those flicks were
hot shit the day they opened, and I wouldn't ask more than that of them.

[Alan Smithee]

On 04/26/2018 01:58 PM, Obveeus wrote:
> Since you haven't seen the scripts (or even read a bit about the planned
> direction) why offer it up as some informed level of thought that there
> doesn't exist enough story for 4 films? There are long running film
> series that operate on simply doing one script over and over (see all
> the horror franchises or Bond film series of FAST * FURIOUS series).

True, but Cameron couldn't pad the "Terminator" storyline past two good
movies so why believe that he'll suddenly get inventive with a movie
that never had much of a story in the first place and was only a
showcase for FX?

I'm sure all four of the sequels will have a better plot and they'll
need it since the "visual appeal" angle will not have as much of an
impact as it did ten years ago.