The problem with this argument is that T2 was his baby (it included many concepts, such as the T-1000, that he didn’t have the money for with T1) and Titanic was his baby too (Jimmy loves diving and the Titanic and the water).
So Avatar is his baby too, which means it could be a huge hit like T2 or Titanic, but the trailer makes me think he shook this baby.
I just made a very unattractive snorting noise in the back of my throat that makes me very happy I’m the only person in the office this afternoon.
Can we all agree that 10 foot tall blue alien cat chicks have nice tits? Can we all just agree on the one thing we know for sure about this movie?
Technically she/he was a hermaphrodite. Naked blue alien hermaphrodites rock.
This is wrong. It just isn’t the same. If you want to discuss this I suggest you actually read up on Avatar and why it’s different. I’m not interested in pithy, though clever responses.
Avatar is the movie he always wanted to make when he was making those other films but the technology just wasn’t there. It was conceptualized decades ago and he has spent the last decade perfecting it.
So I’m interested in it. You can desperately want it to fail all that you want. I don’t share the same assessment.
Hopefully he didn’t shake it. 
Wow. Looking over that list, you are right. 2007 was a helluva year!
They reproduce by parthenogenesis, even if some sort of psionic mind-meld thing is required. Calling the species hermaphrodites is misleading.
Is it just me, or does this look like Dances with Wolves–IN SPACE!
Yes. It’s just you.
You know, I thought it seemed more like The Last Samurai.
I should point out that “stereoblind” is a subset of “people who have some type of problem with their binocular vision.” The two are not synonyms. Plenty of people have problems with binocular vision and yet can still see stereo figures.
Fox is being very cagey as to exactly how much it cost, Fox says 'Avatar' is costliest film it's ever made - CNN.com, which makes me think it’s so grotesquely expensive that it will have to do very, VERY well to be considered anything other than a bomb. And I don’t think it will.
Your article points out how much of the cost was put into advancing the new technology which I am sure Fox owns a piece of. So that all needs to be taken into account. Also, if they want to make a trilogy, which I believe Cameron does, it won’t cost nearly as much to make the next two because the tech is already developed.
But if it bombs there will never be a trilogy. Not with an upfront, part-one budget like that.
I haven’t read anything about a trilogy. Where is this coming from?
Newsflash; Avatar preview screening not completely woeful, just occasionally nauseating, quasi-political allegory crossed with thundercats.
Well, I, for one, am really looking forward to this one and will likely take the day off work next Friday so I can see it.
And let’s face it: it’s our last, best hope for a movie to knock off Transformers 2: The Revenge of the Idiotic from the top of the yearly grosses chart. I mean, really: Who do you want to be # 1 if your choice is James Cameron or Michael Bey?
From the article The Man Who Wasn’t There just linked to:
"If it does well – and there seems little doubt that it will not – then can we expect more? “We’ll see,” said Cameron. “But yes, I have a story worked out for a second film and a third film.”
There’s a reference to a trilogy at the bottom of Man Who Wasn’t There’s link.