‘Avatar 2’ Begins Shooting in Late 2013 Says James Cameron

The director wants to shoot at 48 frames per second, just like Peter Jackson did on ‘The Hobbit’ movies.
BY |
‘Avatar 2’ Begins Shooting in Late 2013 Says James Cameron

Avatar 2 and Avatar 3 will begin shooting near the end of 2013James Cameron was the surprise guest at the world premiere of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in New Zealand yesterday, lending his support to director Peter Jackson. The filmmaker also provided an update on Avatar 2 and Avatar 3, revealing that he hopes to finish the screenplays by February to start production by the end of 2013.

"I want to get these scripts nailed down, I don't want to be writing the movie in post production. We kind of did that on the first picture, I ended up cutting out a lot of scenes and so on and I don't want to do that again."

Back in April, the director's producing partner Jon Landau revealed that Avatar 2 might not make its proposed December 2014 release date. If shooting doesn't start until the end of 2013, it seems we may be waiting a bit longer before heading back to Pandora.

The filmmaker also believes that Peter Jackson's use of the 48 frames per second frame rate will lead the way for his Pandora-set sequels.

"If there is acceptance of 48, then that will pave the way for Avatar (sequels) to take advantage of it. We charged out ahead on 3D with Avatar, now Peter's doing it with The Hobbit. It takes that kind of bold move to make change."

Avatar 2 comes to theaters November 2017.

Avatar 3 comes to theaters November 2018.

Best of the Web

64 comments

Want to join the discussion?

Facebook Twitter
  • XxNickTheFilmCriticXx • 3 years ago

    @bawnian-dexeus -- Well, uh, what can I say; I aim to please.

    reply

    • bawnian-dexeus • 3 years ago

      @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx Oh, nothing. Just reading the last few comments. Entertaining stuff

      reply

      • bawnian-dexeus • 3 years ago

        @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx Damn dude, lol

        reply

        • XxNickTheFilmCriticXx • 3 years ago

          @corey --- In that regard, there's a difference, between the two. "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World" was over-the-top, and vibrant beyond words. Everything was exaggerated, especially the villains. "The Terminator" included bad acting, for the sake of bad acting. I couldn't help but laugh during the scene where the female lead abruptly starts acting like a drill instructor, to show that everything's falling in the right place.

          I hope you're not serious. The extras for "The Avengers" sucked, Scarlett Johansson sucked, and other cast mates sporadically sucked. What would you rate the acting, out of 10, and what movie would you rate a 10 when it comes to acting?

          So, the characters in the comics are....two-dimensional?

          reply

          • corey • 3 years ago

            @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx And Sctott Pilgrim vs. The World doesn't have sh*t acting? Because it does. And The Avengers is far from badly acted. If you knew anything about comics you'd know that each actor embodies the characters from the comics for the fans perfectly, especially RDJ.

            reply

            • XxNickTheFilmCriticXx • 3 years ago

              @corey -- A classic that's shallow, laughably acted, and tedious. And a melodramatic blockbuster that's conclusion is a replica of "Transformers: Dark of The Moon", a mediocre action film.

              Understandable.

              reply

              • corey • 3 years ago

                @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx Understandable. We all have our opinions. But I think just about 90 percent of audiences would prefer a classic like Terminator and blockbuster like The Avengers over Scott Pilgrim vs The World any day of the week :P

                reply

                • XxNickTheFilmCriticXx • 3 years ago

                  @corey -- Mindless action flick? Well, I don't know if "The Raid" could be considered "brainless", but I really enjoyed that one. I really liked "The Man From Nowhere", "Kick-Ass", and "Scott Pilgrim Vs The World", too. I'm always up for a fun, action movie. As long as it's quality ridden, of course. But, if it's anything like 'The Averages', I'll gladly oppose it. I don't bash them because their "not perfect"; no film is perfect. I bash them because they suck. It's as simple as that.

                  reply

                  • corey • 3 years ago

                    @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx I'm just going to throw in my two cents. Not to start an argument, but based on what I've been reading on this thread, I think you Nick need to learn to just sit back and enjoy a brainless action flick every once and a while, and not bash them because they aren't perfect. No movie is 100 percent perfect, or at least not all the time.

                    reply

                    • XxNickTheFilmCriticXx • 3 years ago

                      @felipe-11 -- I know that; I was talking about about "Transformers: Dark of The Moon". That's clear? I'm trying to reread my posts to uncover what allowed you to grasp such a notion, but I'm failing, miserably.

                      I. Know. That. You don't know who you're talking to, apparently.

                      Again, I know that. Which is odd, since it's so much like Michael Bay's Transformers. Maybe people judged by special effects and sound editing(like you mentioned), and neglected everything else. That's the only conclusion I've drawn, given the film's quality.

                      The look/effects of a film don't matter when everything else is 'so-so'. But, as long as it's groundbreaking, it meets critical acclaim.

                      Even if it's "Avatar"...

                      reply

                      • felipe-11 • 3 years ago

                        @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx Cameron wasn't even involved in Terminator 3, so I'm not talking about the whole franchise, just T1 and T2 which he wrote/directed.

                        Anyway, it's clear now that you don't know/understand what "themes" in a movie are. Themes aren't the plot, themes are the undertones that drive the plot. The Matrix for instance, is a movie about robots taking over mankind, that's the plot -the themes however are existentialism & reality, religion, etc. No, they don't go in deep into each theme, it's just enough to plant the idea and make the plot move.

                        The Terminator, whether you like it or not, was a total comercial/critical success. Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs was great and looked appropriate on a budget/genre basis, but Terminator looked MUCH better than most of the sci-fi movies that were being done at the time with much larger budgets (as it also happened with Spielberg's Jaws and Ridley Scott's Alien, for instance).

                        reply

                        • moviemaniac66 • 3 years ago

                          Lool, forgot this movie was even being made.

                          reply

                          • dan1 • 3 years ago

                            @bryanyentz hahahaha.

                            reply

                            • bryanyentz • 3 years ago

                              Continued to alter the script in post, eh? So he was still unsure of what plots to steal even during editing?

                              reply

                              • ChiRep-1 • 3 years ago

                                Well at least he addressed that the script sucked..

                                reply

                                • XxNickTheFilmCriticXx • 3 years ago

                                  @felipe-11 -- I've only seen the first one, and all I got was "we need to get the hell out of here, and continue to run throughout the entire movie before he gets to us". Sure, those elements were mentioned, but they sure as hell weren't explored. You're ignoring so many other examples. Have you not seen the first two Transformers? Aye? Sexism is oozing out of every single movie in that particular franchise.

                                  No, I'm not. Have you not seen the third one? Again, it mentioned it, but it never explored it, just like "The Terminator". Nice jab, though. Even if it failed, it was appreciated.

                                  True, but that was just an attempt to show you an example of a great debut. "The Terminator", not so much.

                                  reply

                                  • thedude1 • 3 years ago

                                    James Cameron's ego strikes yet again.

                                    reply

                                    • dan1 • 3 years ago

                                      You guys are killing me here....

                                      reply

                                      • john-m • 3 years ago

                                        @ejk1: lol. Love the South Park reference to one of it's best episodes and it's true James Cameron does what James Cameron does is because James Cameron is...James Cameron.

                                        reply

                                        Around The Web

                                        Latest Headlines

                                        Popular Movies