‘Avatar 2’ Release Pushed to 2016 Says Jon Landau

It was previously believed the highly-anticipated sequel would hit theaters in 2014, with ‘Avatar 3’ to follow in 2015.

Avatar 2 isn't coming until 2016
Avatar 2 isn't coming until 2016
Last January, director James Cameron revealed he is planning to release Avatar 2 in December 2014, and Avatar 3 in December 2015. It seems that timetable has moved up a bit, since producer Jon Landau revealed that Avatar 2 won't be ready until 2016. Here's an excerpt from the article.

"According to Landau this morning, the first sequel is 'four years away.' So that's 2016 by a literal count, though we could be bendy and assume that Christmas 2015 would also be an option. Expect Avatar 3 a year later, as the performance capture and cinematography would take place back-to-back with the second film."

We also reported in September that James Cameron wants to shoot Avatar 2 at 60 frames per second, as opposed to the industry standard 24 frames per second. Jon Landau revealed that James Cameron is committed to the higher frame rate.

"Landau promised that Avatar 2 was going to showcase advanced technology, from the 3D camera system used to the CG and performance capture, but also in terms of a higher framerate. This, he says, is the new frontier that he and Cameron are most interested in pushing."

Sources: Bleeding Cool

Share this story yet?

0 0 0 0 0


Comments (58)

  1. Bishopsgait

    All you giddy J.C. worshipers (this is what the blue-light/infraguard types refer to him as, in hopes of climbing to another level within their consortium) need to be prepard for your shiny white-night being exposed for his unoriginal lumbering on the grounds of another authors efforts. Avatar number one will soon be resting near the Titanic. Read bishopsgait.blogspot.com

    3 years agoby @bishopsgaitFlag

  2. Radam247

    You talk about the escapism factor of movie go'ers, Then why not make the movie seem more real-life with 60fps. I personally like the fact that with more of a reality feel I can lose myself in the film and fall into the world that the director is trying to create. So I say bring it on.

    3 years agoby @radam247Flag

  3. Sean

    Didn't it take them even longer to make the first Avatar movie ?

    3 years agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  4. lance123

    Why so long

    3 years agoby @lancelievenseFlag

  5. Salemwolf711

    just cancel it

    3 years agoby @Salemwolf711Flag

  6. K-Man

    @moviemaniac66 - Yup, agreed. 24fps all the way, my friend.

    3 years agoby @k-manFlag

  7. Nicholaus XX

    @themoviefanatic -- Yeah, it was okay. Not nearly as good as everyone says it is.

    3 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  8. MovieManiac

    @k-man - Oh. Thanks for the correction. I've seen seen videos of what 60 fps looks like on youtube and It looks too smooth and real for my taste. I agree with you that it takes away from the feel of an actual film. I'd rather they just stick with 24 fps.

    3 years agoby @moviemaniac66Flag

  9. Sean

    I agree, but i thought it was just okay though. I probably would of liked the extended version better though. I got the barebones blu ray version of it, when it was released to that version of it on blu ray.

    3 years agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  10. Nicholaus XX

    As long as they can make it a hell lot better than the first one, I'm all for it.

    3 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  11. Sean

    Yeah, they should probably stick with that "strobing effect" then ?

    3 years agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  12. Dark_888

    oh man ,why ?

    3 years agoby @dark-888Flag

  13. K-Man

    I can wait.....not really a big deal to me.

    @moviemaniac66@themoviefanatic - No, no, no fellas, you are talking about two very different things here. What you guys did, in Walmart, is you saw the difference between T.V.'s that played at 60hz vs. 120hz (not frames per second). What that is, is the refresh ratio.....how often the T.V's picture refreshes each second. When watching a film, a T.V should ALWAYS be set to 60hz (or if you have a 120hz T.V, just turn the 120hz to "off" and it will automatically bump it down). When watching a film at 120hz it looks very weird, like it's incredibly fake looking. The reason for that is because it takes away almost all motion blur from a scene that is SUPPOSED to have motion blur, which is a necessity for films (which are shot at 24fps). You tend to notice it more when the camera is actually moving! It looks TERRIBLE!!!!!

    What James Cameron is talking about is the difference between 24fps, 48 fps and 60fps. This is how many frames pass through the actual camera gate per-second. What this will essentially do is make the picture look "smoother" and more "reality T.V.-ish for films that are shot in 3D (which really sucks!).
    You see, we are all used to it now (and most of us PREFER it) but films shot at 24fps have, what is called, the strobe effect. There is a very, VERY slight strobing going on within the picture.....that's because the number of frames shooting per second, doesn't match that of what the human eye would technically see in real-life, which is said to be the equivalent of 48 fps. A lot of people (whiners) were complaining that the strobing effect is what made them nauseous when watching the movie in 3D. Therefore, this is their "solution" to the problem.
    However, for me (and several million other people around the world), that "strobing effect" is what gives films that surreal, dreamlike feel that adds so much to the "escapism". That is why I absolutely HATE the idea of shooting in higher frame rates. Its going to ruin that magical feel of the movies and make it feel more like reality on the big screen. Nobody wants that crap!!!

    3 years agoby @k-manFlag

  14. Sean

    Yeah, i usually choose 24fps more, over 60fps if the picture seems too grainy on the tv screen.

    3 years agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  15. MovieManiac

    @themoviefanatic - Yeah. Me and my friends were walking through a Walmart back in august and they had HD Tv's on display and they were all playing Batman Begins. They had some of them with 24 fps and others with 60 fps. I could tell the diffrence perfectly on the TV's. 60 fps doesn't look bad at all, it's just that I have become so used to 24 fps that I'd rather just stick with that then have it changed.

    3 years agoby @moviemaniac66Flag

  16. the Narrator

    T2 was made seven years after the original. and you know what? He didn't care if the interest died down by the time of production, because he easily brought it back with a few well aimed trailers and a crazy marketing campaign. Cameron could easily do so again.

    Granted, it's nowhere near the top of my list (nowhere near), but Cameron is prone to making strong sequels, so we'll see where this goes. The stories been attacked pretty hard all around, so being a smart money grabbing man, he'll probably do something about that.

    3 years agoby @narratorFlag

  17. Sean

    You know, it's funny that you've mentioned that, because on my hdtv and blu ray player, i have this picture setting where i can choose from either watching my blu ray movies at 60fps or 24fps, and i usually watch them in either one, more likely 24fps if the picture of the movie is not too sharp and smooth at the same time. As for movies playing in one of those two ways in movie theaters, i usually can't tell which one it was filmed in unless the movie is playing in IMAX theater at a movie theater.

    3 years agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  18. MovieManiac

    @themoviefanatic - Idon't know about everybody else but I like when a movie is traditional 24 fps. If you look at HD tvs today which have a higher frame rate per second, it looks smooth and more real. It makes me feel more like I am watching a home video then an actual movie. I'd rather they just stick with the 24 fps.

    3 years agoby @moviemaniac66Flag

  19. Corey W.

    Probably won't care anymore by then.

    3 years agoby @coreyFlag

  20. John M

    This is great news now all we they need to do is cancel the project completely . As @ROFLitschristian said Avatar is one of the most overrated films in history.

    3 years agoby @john-mFlag

  21. thedude-abides

    @felipe-11 Recent track record. I'm talking about everything after Titanic. All he's done since coming back from his 11-year hiatus is make one pretty good movie, albeit glorified because of its effects, produce a couple of below-average pictures, and repackage two of his movies (the two highest grossing films ever, mind you) for 3D re-release in what many have characterized, myself included, as a shameless money grab.

    I agree with what you're saying, though. Anyone would be hard pressed to name another director who's had a better overall career than Cameron has. The guy's never made a bad movie -- definitely up there with those other names you mentioned.

    @ROFLitschristian Lol. No doubt.

    3 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  22. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @ROFLitschristian I'm a little bored :P

    3 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  23. ROFLitschristian

    @bawnian-dexeus Are you agreeing with me, or are you making fun of me? XD

    3 years agoby @ROFLitschristianFlag

  24. ROFLitschristian

    @thedude-abides Only Cameron would make a second attempt at Titanic 2...

    3 years agoby @ROFLitschristianFlag

  25. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @ROFLitschristian I see you got your point across

    3 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  26. ROFLitschristian

    Hey, let's push it back to the point when everyone realizes that Avatar is the most overrated piece of trash ever.

    Pointless sequels are pointless. Pointless movies are pointless.

    3 years agoby @ROFLitschristianFlag

  27. Replicant


    Sucks to wait more, but knowing Cameron's films, each time he took 'extra' time it was well worth it. The good thing is at least we'll only have to wait 1 year for Avatar 3! :)
    Imagine if we had to wait till 2021 or something.

    @thedude-abides Cameron's track record? I HONESTLY can't think of a 'high-caliber' director with a better track record. Even Spielberg, Ridley Scott and the best of 'em have a few so-so's. Not only has he pushed technology to max in every film, they're all critically acclaimed too (minus the internet haters of course). Maybe Chris Nolan is the only other director with such an impecable track record.

    3 years agoby @felipe-11Flag

From The Web