News: 0180432427

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

While Releasing 'Avatar 3', James Cameron Questions the Future of Movies (thewrap.com)

(Sunday December 21, 2025 @11:34AM (EditorDavid) from the I'll-be-back dept.)


"If I get to do another Avatar film, it'll be because the business model still works," James Cameron [1]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 [2]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 [3]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 [4]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.



[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/19/entertainment/video/james-cameron-avatar

[2] https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/movies/avatar-fire-and-ash-james-cameron-interview/

[3] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/james-cameron-interview-avatar-future-1236451614/

[4] https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2025/12/20/avatar-fire-ash-movie-ending-explained/87819634007/



Smurfs in Space (Score:2)

by nospam007 ( 722110 ) *

What's not to like?

Re: (Score:2)

by martin-boundary ( 547041 )

And if it sucks.... that's just Megamaid!

Steaming Piles of Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)

by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 )

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.

Re: Steaming Piles of Bullshit (Score:1)

by iggymanz ( 596061 )

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?

Re: (Score:1)

by Anonymous Coward

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:2)

by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 )

> 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)

by alvinrod ( 889928 )

I was similarly underwhelmed by the first. It was technically impressive, particularly considering it came out nearly 15 years ago and most computer graphics are lucky to hold up for a decade. However, narratively it was bland and from what I've heard the sequels are worse. It seems like Cameron has aimed the films at a younger audience, which of course is going to limit how complex they can be, but there are plenty of Pixar films that do a better job with their storytelling even though they're animated fil

Re: (Score:2)

by znrt ( 2424692 )

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.

Talk to management, not to me. (Score:2)

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 )

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); dickheads making noise or fucking around on their phones, some asshole who de

Re: (Score:2)

by know-nothing cunt ( 6546228 )

> 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:2)

by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 )

> 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.

CGI (Score:2)

by ThurstonMoore ( 605470 )

CGI has ruined movies. The over the top effects are way too distracting.

Re: (Score:2)

by SpinyNorman ( 33776 )

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: (Score:2)

by dunkelfalke ( 91624 )

Distracting from what exactly? Breathtaking CGI is the whole point of the Avatar movies.

The movie going experience (Score:2)

by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

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)

by Tim the Gecko ( 745081 )

> 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)

by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

> 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)

by Chris Mattern ( 191822 )

"Picture Avatar sequels stamping on a human face forever."

--James Cameron

Re: (Score:2)

by Zarhan ( 415465 )

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)

by SpinyNorman ( 33776 )

Exactly. I hadn't read your comment, but I just posted pretty much exactly the same thing.

Re: (Score:2)

by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 )

> 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)

by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 )

I'm sorry Judge Doom. Hope I get fired for that blunder.

Nobody wants 3+ hours in your sacred space (Score:2)

by angryargus ( 559948 )

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)

by SpinyNorman ( 33776 )

> 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

Theaters are dinosaurs (Score:2)

by MpVpRb ( 1423381 )

...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)

by Yo,dog! ( 1819436 )

... let alone a 3rd, 4th, 5th? The first Avatar was enough for me. Nice job but enough.

why are we complaining (Score:1)

by luther349 ( 645380 )

"Avatar: Fire and Ash" has debuted at the top of the box office with an $88 million domestic opening and a global opening of $345 million, marking the second-highest studio opening of 2025 behind "Zootopia 2" the films still set to make 1.6 billion.

The adjective is the banana peel of the parts of speech.
-- Clifton Fadiman