Avatar Superthread

BlitzKrieg

Can I ask you, if you seen a film with great characterization, and little in the way of visuals would you consider that film to be great on that 1 quality alone?

isnt that why Clerks is such a cult classic?

uncleoswald

L31mr0d wrote: »

It is, without a doubt, the most visually impressive film to date.

Out of interest do you mean from a technological or artistic view point?

Dr. Greenthumb

L31mr0d wrote: »

I just think with Avatar, people are shining too bright a light on the flaws and not lauding enough the technical achievement and visual spectacle of it. It is, without a doubt, the most visually impressive film to date. That achievement alone is enough to make it a great film, imo.

Can I ask you, if you seen a film with great characterization, and little in the way of visuals would you consider that film to be great on that 1 quality alone?

IMO one good aspect (visualization) does not make it a great film. It may make enjoyable and entertaining but not necessarily a film to to be ranked along side the best.

All the old films (Ben Hur, Spartacus, Wonderful Life etc) had no special effects and had to rely on good acting and character development to make them great and i wouldn't put avatar in the same category.

BlitzKrieg

All the old films (Ben Hur, Spartacus, Wonderful Life etc) had no special effects

you're kidding right?

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

isnt that why Clerks is such a cult classic?

Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by a "cult classic" in reference to my question. Do you think Clerks is a great film? A "cult classic" usually refers to a film largely viewed as below average to woeful, but that also has a polarized small following of viewers who found it brilliant.

For example, the film "Showgirls" would be considered a cult classic.

johnny_ultimate

L31mr0d wrote: »

I just think with Avatar, people are shining too bright a light on the flaws and not lauding enough the technical achievement and visual spectacle of it. It is, without a doubt, the most visually impressive film to date. That achievement alone is enough to make it a great film, imo.

Can I ask you, if you seen a film with great characterization, and little in the way of visuals would you consider that film to be great on that 1 quality alone?

Apologies if I generalised with the 'visuals don't make a good film' comment, but there is so many more elements to cinema than merely sight - they are basic foundations of cinematic storytelling. Of course visuals are vital - the last half hour of Where the Wild Things Are tells the story with barely any dialogue, and is extremely powerful as a result - the character's actions tell the story. I'm not denying for a second visuals are not important - they are vital in the medium, I just think they are one part of a more complicated mixture that my favourite films (to avoid a generalisation) tend to feature. Something like (to pick one random example) Spirited Away is a film with tremendous art design, and like Pandora, a world of beauty. Yet the characters are more credible, the tale & tone more original and compelling. Avatar may compete with it visually (arguably), but I consider Spirited Away a better film because visuals are extraordinary, but so is the hypnotic story (which, incidentally, is rather simple too, but this works to its benefit).

I don't think anyone on this thread has said the film looks bad, in fact quite the opposite. It is a technical accomplishment (how could it not be with 300 million thrown at it?). But if I compare it to say Star Trek (my favourite action / sci-fi film of the year) it comes up short. They both may look great, but ST had more iconic, entertaining characters (Kirk, Spock), a credible villain (Nero), plenty of humour, and more compelling action (I found the spacesuit dive in ST far more enjoyable than the final extended action sequence of Avatar, which felt like a rehash of LotR, Return of the Jedi and countless other action films).

As you rightly say, it is all opinion. But there are elements of film that can combine to make a film more interesting than mere visual ingenuity. Give someone like Spike Jonze, Hayao Miyasaki or JJ Abrams (to use the three directors I've mentioned already) $300 million, and I think they could make a film as visually impressive, but also more rounded.

BlitzKrieg

Do you think Clerks is a great film?

Yes I consider clerks a great film.

other films that dont rely on great visuals that I consider great

A Man Escaped

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrBZF9AFH4Q

man bites dog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcPhaieTg4o

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Yes I consider clerks a great film.

Okay, so you accept that a film doesn't have to be great in every possible aspect to be considered a great film? Then do you also accept that just as a film that only has amazing characterization can be considered great, that a film that only has amazing visuals can be considered great?

Dr. Greenthumb

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

you're kidding right?

Maybe Ben Hur isn't liked by the masses or you but it's a great film IMO. Anyway that's beside the point as films are all based on personal choice.

The point I'm making is that one aspect of a movies such as the special effects doesn't make it a great / classic movie. I enjoyed the special effects in avatar but the rest left a lot to be desired.

BlitzKrieg

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

Maybe Ben Hur isn't liked by the masses or you but it's a great film IMO. Anyway that's beside the point as films are all based on personal choice.

The point I'm making is that one aspect of a movies such as the special effects doesn't make it a great / classic movie. I enjoyed the special effects in avatar but the rest left a lot to be desired.

no no no

I wasnt saying ben hur's a bad film. Its just... IT IS A SFX spectacular. Maybe not the CGI sfx we know today. But its a film that relied on a number of effect sequences throughout its narrative (the chariot race being the most famous)

TheRealist

Okay, I realise this has probably been answered but can someone tell me what the craic is with seeing it in 3D? What cinemas are showing it and is there glasses involved

KerranJast

TheRealist wrote: »

Okay, I realise this has probably been answered but can someone tell me what the craic is with seeing it in 3D? What cinemas are showing it and is there glasses involved

Yes you'll need glasses. The cinemas provide sunglasses style ones for you to wear. Most of the main cinema chains are showing it in 3D. Which one is nearest you?

TheRealist

I might try to go see in in Dungarvan SGC which is a digital cinema AFAIK, which is a good thing I'd imagine

KerranJast

TheRealist wrote: »

I might try to go see in in Dungarvan SGC which is a digital cinema AFAIK, which is a good thing I'd imagine

Definately. Better picture quality and sound plus support for the newer 3D projection systems.

Ri_Nollaig

L31mr0d wrote: »

The bolded part is probably why I, and myriads of others like me will annoy you. The rest of us aren't so anal retentive so as to require a film to tick a set list of boxes before we can give it the label of being a great film.

Was very enjoyable to watch but people ranking this as the best movie in years/groundbreaking is starting to annoy me.

I bolded the point I was trying to make. It was enjoyable but so were films like G.I. Joe (for mainly been so stupid and a live-action version of Team America) and Transformers 1/2 (for just basically been explosions, CGI and ...Megan Fox). But by no means are they going to be remembered as "classics". And this is my point, people (well reviewers) are calling avatar the best film of the past decade! that is abit much tbh.

I just think too many people are falling for the hype around it and tbh its a shame, as had it had a brilliant story to go with its effects then it would have without a doubt been a classic. I did have high hopes for this movie, mainly as Aliens and Terminator 1/2 are some of my favourites movies of all time.

Sleazus

L31mr0d wrote: »

Okay, so you accept that a film doesn't have to be great in every possible aspect to be considered a great film? Then do you also accept that just as a film that only has amazing characterization can be considered great, that a film that only has amazing visuals can be considered great?

I think that depends on what you're looking for in a film. Personally (and it has to be a subjective thing, because you can't objectively judge these things), I look for a story well told. I think special effects should only serve to compliment the plot, not act in lieu of it.

If the film was just a walking tour of Pandora without a linear storyline, I don't think that the critics of the movie would be reacting as it is. It's not the fact that it doesn't have a solid storyline that gets people - it's that it doesn't have a storyline that is half as insightful or as sturdy as it pretends it is.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think that there's a difference between a film with great visuals accompanying an absent storyline (think of Koyaanisqatsi, for example) - which in that case story would not impact its rating at all - or a film with great visuals with a terrible storyline and really bad writing (like The Phantom Menace, for example) - which would actively deduct the overall grade that an individual assigns a film.

I'm basically saying that the writing was so bad that it actively deducted from the awe-inspiring nature of the visuals.

Corholio

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

I bolded the point I was trying to make. It was enjoyable but so were films like G.I. Joe (for mainly been so stupid and a live-action version of Team America) and Transformers 1/2 (for just basically been explosions, CGI and ...Megan Fox). But by no means are they going to be remembered as "classics". And this is my point, people (well reviewers) are calling avatar the best film of the past decade! that is abit much tbh.

I just think too many people are falling for the hype around it and tbh its a shame, as had it had a brilliant story to go with its effects then it would have without a doubt been a classic. I did have high hopes for this movie, mainly as Aliens and Terminator 1/2 are some of my favourites movies of all time.

G.I Joe and Transformers 2 were atrocious films. Whatever about its so called shortcomings, it's light years better than either of them.

Anyway, my two cents on the film. To be honest im not seeing these weaknesses in the story and the strange comments that "we've seen the story before" are a bit baffling too, but that just my opinion.

Yes it was hyped and yes it could never have lived upto it. But id recommend it to anyone because its an outstanding experience, both the 3D effect and the film itself. Despite the films length, i thought the pacing of it was absolutely spot on.

This may sound like an unusual thing to point out, but i thought Zoe Saldana's voice work of Neytiri was exceptional. She got across the emotion of the scenes really, really well.

A film that going to cinema was made for IMO.

speedboatchase

Quick Box Office update, basically Avatar was just $200,000 off beating I Am Legend's U.S December opening weekend record - $77m. Overseas it drew a ridiculously impressive $191m. It was the highest opening weekend of any movie that wasn't based on an existing property or sequel and the 9th best all time worldwide opening. A lot of people are raving at it's Monday numbers, which were $16m, a drop of just 30% from it's Sunday number, a crazily small drop.

So far $285m worldwide in 4 days and late December films typically have strong legs because Hollywood's slate is pretty bare from January and February. Could we be looking at only the 5th movie to ever break the $1 billion worldwide barrier? I'm thinking absolutely, though Cameron's own record holder (Titanic - $1.8bn) is pretty safe imo

Slugs

Corholio wrote: »

G.I Joe and Transformers 2 were atrocious films. Whatever about its so called shortcomings, it's light years better than either of them.

Anyway, my two cents on the film. To be honest im not seeing these weaknesses in the story and the strange comments that "we've seen the story before" are a bit baffling too, but that just my opinion.

Yes it was hyped and yes it could never have lived upto it. But id recommend it to anyone because its an outstanding experience, both the 3D effect and the film itself. Despite the films length, i thought the pacing of it was absolutely spot on.

This may sound like an unusual thing to point out, but i thought Zoe Saldana's voice work of Neytiri was exceptional. She got across the emotion of the scenes really, really well.

A film that going to cinema was made for IMO.

A man joins a fight for an army invading a territory. Is sent to assimilate into the culture to learn their weaknesses, and yet ends up fighting the ones he was the enemy of. Done before.

mdwexford

Just back from 2nd viewing.

Anyone who doesnt like Avatar is stooooopid.

/ end thread.

BlitzKrieg

i laughed at a one line review I saw of this earlier.

Avatar...lame story + pretty images = Pretty Lame.

blunt but got a giggle from me.

Liam O

I've become completely obsessed with the movie. I went to see it in 3D first and then made the mistake of seeing it in 2D which made me need to see it in 3D again to make up for it. Thought the story was very good. Introduces you to the characters/Pandora for the first couple hours and then a very impressive battle scene. There are some shortcomings and uncomfortable moments where you think not in a million years is that possible. Overall a very good movie. It'd get an 8.5 or 9 from me

Corholio

Slugs wrote: »

A man joins a fight for an army invading a territory. Is sent to assimilate into the culture to learn their weaknesses, and yet ends up fighting the ones he was the enemy of. Done before.

Has been done before. But most films have an underlying template that has been used before, and no matter how original a film may seem, a certain person could see a past storyline progression similarity to their choosing.

BlitzKrieg

But most films have an underlying template that has been used before, and no matter how original a film may seem, a certain person could see a past storyline progression similarity to their choosing.

keyword there on what is at flaw with avatar.

vinylbomb

Its the best looking piece of sh*t I've ever seen.

Its like a David Attenborough/National Geographic documentary video on insane steroids, cross-bred with Dances with Wolves and a side helping of Greenpeace.

I found that after about 60-70 mins I stopped being so awe-struck at the visuals and started looking for a story. It wasn't there unfortunately.

While being technically out on its own and definitely THE most sumptuous feast for the eyes cinema has ever produced, it is bloated, long-winded, poorly paced, badly characterized, has stodgy dialogue...........

As noted previously by another poster, the only character I had any feeling towards was the psuedo Colonel Kilgore marine.

And as previously said by another poster : The future of cinema...I bloody hope not.

Cookie_Monster

I really enjoyed this film as a switch off brain and watch kind of flick.

One thing that seriously annoyed me though is that how 145 odd years in the future when we have mastered space travel do they only have a load of crappy helicopters, little measly missiles and machine guns?

One nuke or fuel-air bomb could have sorted the whole thing out in minutes :P

L31mr0d

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

One thing that seriously annoyed me though is that how 145 odd years in the future when we have mastered space travel do they only have a load of crappy helicopters, little measly missiles and machine guns?

This is a point that people seem to be confusing. Earth's military has not moved to Pandora. It is a private company that is mining the planet, and they have hired a PMC or set up their own one out of ex-military to work as security on Pandora.

There is no need for orbital bombardment ships/satellites or advanced spacecraft. They are mining a mineral and only require enough fire power to fend off the native wildlife. As humans have clearly progressed into a full blown capitalism, they aren't going to waste resources on firepower that would not normally be needed. This is one of the main reasons that at the end

they had to wrap a whole load of mining explosives to a palette instead of having any bombs handy to drop, or satellites in orbit to bombard it.

seclachi

I`m going to try and elaborate some more on why I liked this, its been playing on my mind a few days after seeing it, which is always a sign of a good movie in my books.

The Visuals: The 3d is really impressive, and gives a fair few wow moments that just knocked my socks off, it really helps you get into the movie. I think the main downsides are that you get used to it after a while, especially in such a long movie, but then some sfx spectacular jolts you back to life.

The story:

I loved the avatar idea, controlling a completely different being and having new sensory experiences, being linked to the environment and living a completely different life. I found the obvious conflict between the two worlds and how this would be concluded kept me on the edge of my seat throughout.You can argue the conclusion to it was predictable, but I think cinema now is becoming less predictable in itself, there were a few real possibility's, his avatar could have died with him returning to earth as a pariah, he could have died himself or he could have gone on trying to live the dual life.

I found the environmental argument thought provoking as well, but I dont think its particularly fair, the Na`vi live in a tightly knit ecosystem where everything is linked by some sort of network and they seemed to live pretty ok lives judging by the movie. Humans on the other hand had to adapt there environment, when human society was at the na`vi stage life was horrific, with many people dying to disease and the elements and wild animals. It is quite interesting to think of an ecosystem that would be so symbiotic though, in our ecosystem population is controlled by death or an opposing force, the Pandoran system could simply be controlled by a central source.

The religious aspect also seems quite secular, there is no faith as such, because the deity actually exists in the form of the network, it feels like it shuns human beliefs as being make believe, because the Na`Vi have a tangible system that even humans could make use of

Cookie_Monster

L31mr0d wrote: »

This is a point that people seem to be confusing. Earth's military has not moved to Pandora.

I realise this, but this is the same company the built of gigantic space ship, why would it not have weapons, at least for collision avoidance systems? Surely the production facilities shown in the background several times would have easily been available to produce the required weaponry with minor adjustments. I'm sure there are plenty of private companies in the world today with more advanced or heavier weapons than those shown in the film, tanks etc.

Anyhoo its a trivial point really. I want one of those chopper things, they look cool

thirtythirty

Great film,

would have preferred if the humans had won though . That traitor basically condemned humanity to death as "the aliens returned to their dying world".

Not cool man. Although if I had been the mining company I probably wouldn't have gone after tha navi's home, and just mined elsewhere. Sites may not be as rich as hometree, but 20 mill a kilo is still worth going out with your shovel!

nix

spottyelephant wrote: »

Great film,

would have preferred if the humans had won though . That traitor basically condemned humanity to death as "the aliens returned to their dying world".

Not cool man. Although if I had been the mining company I probably wouldn't have gone after tha navi's home, and just mined elsewhere. Sites may not be as rich as hometree, but 20 mill a kilo is still worth going out with your shovel!

Yeah great way to spoil the film for many you clown.

EDIT: Goodman Galva!

Galvasean

Suppose I should post up a warnng...

Not everyone has seen the film, please put spoilers in spoiler tags

like this

thirtythirty

nix wrote: »

Yeah great way to spoil the film for many you clown.

EDIT: Goodman Galva!

ARRGGH! I didn't even think. I never go into these threads until I've watched a film so just assumed this was a post-viewing discussion. Apologies.

Sherifu

Brilliant movie, would go to see again.

ScumLord

vinylbomb wrote: »

I found that after about 60-70 mins I stopped being so awe-struck at the visuals and started looking for a story. It wasn't there unfortunately.

There is a storey, the working title could easily have been called "native Americans in space". It's essentially the same storey, something that may have some chance of hitting home with Americans over here it's an enviromental childs film but Americans really don't get the fact their distroying the planet and need films like this.

vinylbomb

ScumLord wrote: »

but Americans really don't get the fact their distroying the planet and need films like this.

This idea is where I encounter another of my irritations with this movie. Its a bit ironic that the most expensive film ever made, and the most expensive film ever marketed has a clunky tree-hugger eco narrative behind it.
The studio didn't invest in the flick as an enviro-postcard to the American people, they want their money back with interest.

Also, one would think that while this may have been fresh and new as a storyline 15 years ago when the initial (and from the sounds of it only) script was written it could have been crafted and spun into a really engaging movie in the meantime.

opinion guy

Just saw it. Freaking amazing I reckon. I just could not get my head around the 3d - constantly blew me away. And who knew 12ft smurfs could be hot ?:D did they deliberatley make it hard to see just how naked that main chick was ?:p That alone captivated me for half the film (Sorry could not get my head around the names at all so no clue what the characters name was).

The only part of the film that i didn't like was the bad guys like the military guy - such a tired cliche. It would have been better if they could have given deeper motives than mere greed for the humans actions I think it would have worked better. As regards the 3D - I actually ducked near the end when they aliens were all clapping over their heads and your point of view was flying thru their hands - but its first 3d i've seen since the old days of the red and green glasses :P

Oh - and I'm somewhat amazed that they didn't leave it open for an obvious sequel

Edit: I have to say also. It looked real - the characters were totally convincing unlike anything else i've seen thus far

Bajingo

Anyone uncomfortable with

how the Na’vi select their ikran – that flying beast they ride on the back of? They ambush the beasts, find one that they like, wrestle it to the ground, stick an appendage which has been jokingly referred to as a sexual organ into the creature – and Jake even utters an exhausted “You’re mine”.

That was quite unsettling.

I was a bit weirded out by that bit too..imagine having to stick

'yourself into a horse before you could ride it..it came across as weirdly sexual to me

.. but then it kind of made sense when it was said that the planet is like a huge connected nervous system..I liked the idea in the end.

With the

bombardment from space comment

it was never said whether they all lived happily ever after..but at the time I dont think could

attack from space..

but that's looking to much into it..


Wouldnt mind going to it again because I wasnt in a center seat and came of a tid bit blurry at some points..but the effects were amazing..

I was taking in by the surrounding and I was amazed by the diversity of the wildlife that was imagined in this movie..from plant to animal..

I loved the sounds the 'dogs' made when they attacked jake..their hunting cries

..it sounded so real..

..just amazing

ScumLord

vinylbomb wrote: »

This idea is where I encounter another of my irritations with this movie. Its a bit ironic that the most expensive film ever made, and the most expensive film ever marketed has a clunky tree-hugger eco narrative behind it.

At this stage it's a bit naive to call environmental concern tree hugging. The world is in real catastrophe mode, peak oil, fish stocks set to be completely depleted within 50 years, water waste, population overshot and the destruction of the ecosystem we need to survive all means the things happening in this film could very well be a real course the human race would have to take. It's something the world needs to actually begin to take on board.

opinion guy wrote: »

The only part of the film that i didn't like was the bad guys like the military guy - such a tired cliche. It would have been better if they could have given deeper motives than mere greed for the humans actions I think it would have worked better. As regards the 3D - I actually ducked near the end when they aliens were all clapping over their heads and your point of view was flying thru their hands - but its first 3d i've seen since the old days of the red and green glasses :P

Again it's all relevant it's the same as the US going into Iraq to secure that oil. It's not a cliché it's a real scenario thats being played out as we speak.

vinylbomb

ScumLord wrote: »

At this stage it's a bit naive to call environmental concern tree hugging. The world is in real catastrophe mode, peak oil, fish stocks set to be completely depleted within 50 years, water waste, population overshot and the destruction of the ecosystem we need to survive all means the things happening in this film could very well be a real course the human race would have to take. It's something the world needs to actually begin to take on board.

You've completely missed what I said. For the record - climate change and global warming is a real threat for the planet. However I felt even as a allegory for this Avatar failed. An Inconvenient Truth was a more effective film in highlighting climate change

I'm not going to argue the existences of climate change anyway, I'm talking specifically about Avatar. It contains two shoddy plot-lines, daft scripting, poor characterization, dire pacing and absolutely gorgeous visuals.
1 out of 5 aint great,

And to reiterate my original point - it is ironic that a major cash cow such as this film is so preachy in respect of the environmental themes. Surely with all that money it would have been possible to script more subtlety. I am sorry if I needled your environmental sensibilities, that wasn't my intention.

Sleazus

ScumLord wrote: »

Again it's all relevant it's the same as the US going into Iraq to secure that oil. It's not a cliché it's a real scenario thats being played out as we speak.

Except it's not.

Nothing is as simple as that film makes it out to be. One dimensional people simply don't exist. It doesn't matter whether they are military generals taking an action you don't condone, pedophiles abusing children, serial killers with strange fetishes, a parent walking their child to school or a tree-hugging film director with the largest budget ever - there's a huge amount of complexity there. A good film brings that to the fore - or at least hints at it.

Just because you're perfectly happy to believe that something you dislike is simple, doesn't make it so.

An oil-hungry general isn't necessarily a cliché - as an unobtanium-hungry general isn't. If the film bothered to put layers on the role and turn it into an actual character, it would transcend that. Does he believe what he's doing is right? If he doesn't, does he believe it's necessary? If he doesn't, is he smply comfortable with his place in a giant military-industrial complex or is he impotent against it? Instead we got "isn't he a vindictive badass?" for nearly three hours.

Unfortunately, in this case it is a cliché. I don't have a political problem with the "greed is bad" message - I just find it stale when delivered alongside a disturbing race fantasy and the worst script I've seen in quite sometime (I'm including Transformers 2 in there).

Galvasean

Bajingo wrote: »

I was taking in by the surrounding and I was amazed by the diversity of the wildlife that was imagined in this movie..from plant to animal..

I loved the sounds the 'dogs' made when they attacked jake..their hunting cries

..it sounded so real..

..just amazing

I coukd be mistaken, but I think they dropped in hyaena noises for that scene. I also noticed a few sound effects plucked from Jurassic Park (I would! ). The 'horses' make the raptor 'help' call while that large predator

encountered at the start (and also appears again for the final showdown)

definately made a few T.rex noises.

Seen this last night in 3D.. Unbelievable. Definately the most entertaining movie I've ever seen in a cinema or ever for that matter.

Will be going again before the end of the month.. Cameron does a brilliant job of immersing us completely into the world and culture of the Na'vi.

Up there with City of God, Pulp Fiction and In Bruges as my fav movies.

noodle650

Saw it on sunday evening in the Balincollig cinema in 3-D, best CGi ive ever seen in my life, they finally got the eyes perfect!!!, with the ending does anyone sense a sequel?

Yea, I think there's a sequel.. Someone told me that anyway.

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

Yea, I think there's a sequel.. Someone told me that anyway.

plans for 2 more if this was successful, clearly it has been

sadhbhc15

I really enjoyed this film, yes weak dialogue but I disagree with those who said the storyline was weak. I really felt for the characters - their eyes were so soulful it was incredible. Such a passionate film. And the battle scenes - WOW :eek:. I'll definitely go and see this again soon.

KerranJast

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

plans for 2 more if this was successful, clearly it has been

Yeah Worthington & Saldana are contracted for two more anyway. Don't know what form it'll take though.

It'd be interesting to see a human civil war over Pandora.

The Corporate interests wanting to raze the planet completely after the attack by the Na'vi and more progressive humans (the legitimate military *cough*Starfleet*cough*) wanting to protect the planet. A planet of interconnected flora and fauna is much more valuable that some rare mineral IMO. Imagine how they could regenerate the Earth by bringing back samples from Pandora.

That angle would also allow more space action and a look at what the Earth has become.

speedboatchase

I think there will be a sequel but Cameron wants to do The Dive next year (a relatively low-budget true story about two freedivers), has apparently signed to do a remake of Fantastic Voyage and there's that Battle Angel Alita project which he seems to be trying to dispel recently.

As for the sequel, here's the two different visions I've heard:

Producer Jon Landau http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/09/29/jon-landau-teases-what-we-might-see-in-the-avatar-sequel/ :

"If the public likes Avatar, it's a possibility. After all, here we are exploring the surface of the planet Pandora. The interior remains to be seen."

Cameron himself http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/12/james-cameron-talks-avatar-sequel-.html :

Beyond Pandora: James Cameron may visit other moons in an 'Avatar' sequel

missingtime

It felt kinda like watching Jurassic Park for the first time in the cinema. I know the story is very disney and the hair tentacle thing is retarded but Christ I really enjoyed myself.

Towards the end I nearly shouted "Get the ****ers"

Gonna see it again soon.