http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437086/

It says he's going to do Battle Angel, but I don't know if he intends to stay on as director. I read in the most recent EW that he never intends to go back to 2D film making (they asked him if he would, his response was: "Why would I do that?" ) , so I guess we are to assume this will be a 3D endeavor as well.

I just can't help but wonder what he can do to top himself since every time out he seems to make a landmark movie at this point?

Titanic 2: The Revenge

It's all well and good to condescend to Tarantino and Reitman about the prevalence of 3D and digital filmmaking, but I'd like to see if he could make a "festival-crowd" movie, as he'd put it, and emphasize a story with well-drawn characters before making the next Avatar. Peter Jackson pretty much proved that he couldn't do it with The Lovely Bones, and truthfully if Cameron could (though I know he'd never be for it) it would heighten my estimation of him as a director and would be more worthy of "king of the world" status than "Let's try and hit $2b with the next one!"

Fixed.

I hope he can do another R rated action flick.

In response to hardercore:


Okay, I am not saying I liked Avatar better than Basterds or Up in the Air. In fact, I would rather see either one win Best Picture over Avatar, just as I would have loved to see L.A. Confidential beat Titanic. I don' think Avatar will win Best Picture, and I have yet to see The Hurt Locker (might watch my Netflix copy tonight). I'm just wondering how his next endeavor will prove. Cameron will never do a "festival crowd" kind of movie because that's just not suited to his style. I love character driven stuff, but I also believe someone should stick to their strengths.

This. Fuck I want True Lies on Blu. C'mon Cameron you said you'd work on it when Avatar was done it's done....now give me the Blu.

If you read the EW article then you must have also read that he plans on doing at least one sequel if not two. He even mentioned that there are things in Avatar that could have been edited out but left them in because they will tie in with the sequel.

I think he'll do a part 2 while it's fresh on his mind as well as everyone else's.

Great directors also prove their versatility. See Kubrick, or Scorsese, or even PT Anderson as a contemporary.

How about actually making "Aquaman"?

Jump into his swimming pool filled with 100 dollar bills.

If he uses "Vincent Chase" and gives us a cameo by "Johnny Drama", I'm there for the midnight showing!

On the flip side, I highly doubt Tarantino or Reitman could pull off a mega-budget scifi action epic utilizing the latest in 3D filmmaking technology.

He's the captain of the Enterprise-B.

I would be up for an Avatar sequel, provided he doesn't take 12 years to make it. I would rather see something different, but if he wants to take us to another moon, then so be it.

Cameron has only done two sequels, but oh, what sequels they were.

I can always hope of him rebooting the alien franchise

But he did prove it with Heavenly Creatures. Or do you not count that one.

Of course that doesn't count! It was made before Peter Jackson was a household name, you know. It's also really good, so why should it count towards hardercore's irrational hatred?

obligatory...What does Cameron do now?

What I'm talking about, and what I'd thought this entire thread was about, is "what next?" after making a huge, mega-blockbuster epic that brings in billions. My take is to ask: how well does the director of such a film then do something different -- how do they handle something smaller when without their luxurious budget/power/what have you that comes with the territory of a Lord of the Rings or an Avatar. I'm simply saying that accomplishing a smaller film and executing it well is worthy of more merit than an "Avatar 2", and that's not to denounce the production of an "Avatar 2" eventually. But that's not what Cameron has to prove to anyone, he's done it twice. He got criticised for a lack of originality in the story, wooden characters, etc, right? then the biggest "fuck you" to his detractors would be to prove them wrong with the next one, no? Not prove he can do another film that brings in a load of cash but ultimately illustrates no artistic growth.

...so in this sense, Heavenly Creatures doesn't count. Jackson had a taste of having all resources at the ready with LOTR, he succeeded. Then he made King Kong, and proved what we knew, that he could succeed with alot of time and money. But his "comedown" movie from the high of those films, if you will, was less of a success. I admire him for making The Lovely Bones, but what he proved is that he's a big-spectacle film director now, and has lost a handle on the smaller scale. So Heavenly Creatures not counting wouldn't be on grounds of any degree of hatred, "irrational" or otherwise. I'm hoping it's not that spiteful.

Big budgets are not luxurious. They make a movie harder to make, because you have less creative freedom, more people counting on you and studio execs riding your ass all the time. That is why people like Tarantino and Reitman don't like making movies like that, they have stated that. Your trying to compare two completly different types of filmmakers. Tarantino and Reitman are better in their area, and Cameron and Jackson are better in theirs. And then theirs Nolan who is the best at everything.

Three.

But I guess you meant only two sequels to his own films. (He also did Pirhana 2: The Spawning).

Whoops, I forgot about Pirahna 2. Fine, three sequels. And only one of them was a sequel to his own film (he did not, contrary to popular belief, direct Alien).

Avatar 2