The original Avatar was in 2009. It was visually stunning (if narratively derivative). And it ended in fairly satisfactory way.
But it made a ton of money, so we have had regular promises from James Cameron that multiple sequels are coming. And this is apparently such an Incredibly Cool Thing that no less a media giant than Disney is investing gazillions of dollars in an Avatar-land at Walt Disney World's Animal Kingdom.
But at this point, the next one apparently won't make the most recently mentioned Christmas 2017 window — over 8 years beyond the original film. And I have to ask, has there ever been a sequel to a single film with that great of a time lag that has amounted to much of anything?
I have to confess, I'm just totally confused by why this is seen as such a hotly-anticipated property, still. I mean, really, why? Was the spectacle of Pandora that spectacular to engender such apparent industry enthusiasm?
Avatar 2 Delayed Again, Won’t Meet Christmas 2017 Window
Bad news for anyone anxious to head back to Pandora. News of Avatar 2 delayed yet again has just surfaced and there’s no hint of when we’ll actually see it.
И не выдержали забугорные режиссёры, и показали "истинное лицо" укро-майдаунов в "Аватаре". А чтобы никто не сомневался, пометили флагом на лице…
It made boatloads of money (for reasons I still don't comprehend). That's all the reason they need to fawn over any sequels cause clearly they'll also make boatloads of money.
I'm pretty sure they would've done a sequel to Titanic, if they could have figure out how, if only because it made a boatload of money.
Yeah, for all the money it made, I'm not sure anyone would consider themselves a fan of this movie. It had groundbreaking special effects, but these days it wouldn't be considered anything exceptional, and I'm not sure it can really push the envelope further technically.
The lasting popularity of the movie doesn't really impact its viability in the theme parks, though. One of the most popular rides in both Disneyland and WDW's Magic Kingdom is based on a movie Disney won't even acknowledge anymore, and pretty much no one can tell you who Mr. Toad is. Regular guests (as opposed to the hardcore fans) tend to engage with the parks on their own terms, without necessarily knowing the references. (I can't tell you how many times I saw someone asking a character for an autograph when it was clear that they had no idea who the character actually was.)
Nope. It was good, but not good enough for all the fuss. I think Cameron was caught off-guard by the overwhelming reaction and pulled sequel ideas out of his butt when prompted for more… and then realized they wouldn't actually work so now he's stalling.
Oh… and just to be a smartbutt –
But at this point, the next one apparently won't make the most recently mentioned Christmas 2017 window — over 8 years beyond the original film. And I have to ask, has there ever been a sequel to a single film with that great of a time lag that has amounted to much of anything?
Ummm… Star Wars: The Force Awakens? 😀
Just nuke the whole planet from orbit. Problem solved.
Raises hand fan here. Just because you're not excited, or not a fan, does not mean no one is.
Also, Cameron has been pushing the envelope further technically his whole life, I feel pretty confident he can do so again — and that would be my guess as to why this is delayed. Remember when he took a decade or so off from feature films to develop and perfect new filmmaking technologies?
The bigger worry for me is Cameron is 61 and works at a snail's pace. He wants to do five of these movies, and that's starting to look less likely than GRRM finishing Game of Thrones (though I don't care about that).
Also, I notice Dave was careful to cover his bases with that "single film" caveat, because 15+ years between sequels is pretty common with franchises. 😉
+Daniel Swensen I did very carefully note a single film (with +Marty Shaw 's objection in mind). Franchises / series have their own momentum behind them.
But even there, such returns that long apart generally (a) are reboots, (b) are next generation tales [as with TFA], or (c) rarely (ever) come up to the quality of the original.
Did Avatar make a bucket of money? Sure. Does that mean that Cameron can visit things things again almost a decade down the road and recapture the lightning? Well, while I wouldn't want to be against James Cameron, I think it would take something as innovatively visually stunning as the original was to do so.
(Note that it's not the sequel itself that's as confusing to me as much as "and there will be three to five more" garning Hollywood enthusiasm and "hey, Disney is building a park around this" that has me scratching my head.)
+Daniel Swensen And, yes, I realize that my lack of fannish joy for the project doesn't mean that everyone is in the same place, and if they announced they were doing a Buckaroo Banzai sequel next year (or three), I'd be standing in line. (I'd also probably be scracthing my head if Disney said they were opening up a Buckaroo Banzai land at Hollywood Studios, but I'd be in line for that, too.)
Oh hey, I did think of a couple single films with sequels quite a few years apart. Terminator 1 and 2 (7 years), Alien and Aliens (7 years).
(I realized this when I was mulling over the fact that Cameron tends to do very well with second installments of franchises, historically.)
+Brittany Constable Good analogy to Song of the South, though there was enough song and imagery memory that it wasn't that outre of a thing. It is an odd little memory hole.
Part of my confusion over the choice of a Pandora zone for Animal Kingdom is that it's (a) not a Disney property, and (b) not tonally aligned with the rest of the park (that one's a bit more arguable; DAK is much less "cartoony" than the other parks). It's also, ostensibly, an adult movie, which is also sort of an odd fit. But (a) is the biggest question mark in my brain; did the Disney management of the time really think that it was going to be a big enough draw by its name to support the massive investment (vs going back to a Mythical Animal park segment as originally called for).
I think it's mainly an excuse to return to the Mythical Animal section. If the cross-pollination helps the bean counters sleep better, well, whatever it takes to get it made. Disney has a long and celebrated history of weird-ass corporate partnerships to finance the parks, going all the way back to the TV deal with ABC in '54.
I don't think the answer is very complex. When Avatar hit #1 film of all time, it was Cameron displacing his own record. It'd be one thing if Cameron had a couple successful films and a big spate of flops, but he doesn't. His name is on some of the most iconic franchises of all time.
It probably seems like a very safe investment to Disney — park and series both. Disney also seems to be into bringing some of the cutting-edge ride technology that's proven popular in its Asian markets over to the West, so they likely figure that's a good fit with Cameron's material.
I wonder if this has something to do with EpVIII being pushed back to release on the same wkend.
+Brian Barth That's been rumored. The placement and counter-placement of movies is a mystery that surpasseth understanding.
(I, for one, am glad that we'll have at least a few more years of "the Christmas-time Star Wars movie")
+Brittany Constable Yeah, but they've been really loath to get someone else's IP in there, which is the reason for a lot of hit movies that Disney had at a toe into that didn't get any park presence even when it would have made a lot of sense. (There's a classic example that's escaping me at the moment.)
I'd honestly still rather have dragons than Pandoraforms, but I'll admit that's just me.
Well remember, when Star Tours opened, it was a Fox/Lucasfilm property and Disney didn't own any stake in it. (I think that might have been even before Pixar created a weird bridge between the two; my timelines have gotten a little muddled since I'm no longer dealing with this stuff daily.) The Disney/Star Wars partnership was established and quite fruitful for Parks & Resorts long before the Lucasfilm merger, so it's not that surprising that they might be looking to duplicate it.
+Brittany Constable True, and it's the clear counter-example. But it also underwent a lot of friction over time (thus the long period when Star Tours wasn't updated as had been originally planned). And, of course, Disney eventually bought Lucasfilm, which I don't see happening with James Cameron.
We'll see.
Although much like the sequel to the film, I haven't heard much about the Pandora expansion for ages. Right now the focus is all on the new Star Wars lands, with Marvel and the eternal prospect of a third gate, and I know that Baxter and Lasseter are positively itching to fix Tomorrowland. Pandora keeps getting kicked down the road.
http://thedisneyblog.com/2016/01/18/avatar-land-construction-update-january-2016/ has an update; things seem to be progressing at full speed for a 2017 opening of Avatar-land (which would have it open prior to the second movie).
Wow. Shows how often I pay attention to Florida, I guess.