Fidget spinners.

Undoubtedly, the little gadgets are one of the hottest trends on the market in 2017. No one can question their commercial value at the moment, but in ten years, will people still be clamoring for the latest in fidget spinner technology? Or will people forget why they ever sought them out in the first place?

At what point does fad end and intrinsic value begin?

These are the questions 20th Century Fox should be asking itself as the studio decides exactly how Avatar, almost one decade after the film began its unparalleled journey to a staggering $2.78 billion at the worldwide box office, should continue. The decision has ostensibly been made, with the company remaining steadfast in its plans to make the property a series, including multiple sequels. However, the enigma surrounding the choice is whether there will still be a demand for the reported supply whenever the film(s) finally debut.

RELATED: Avatar Sequels Cast Game of Thrones Actress in Key Role

Let's explore if James Cameron's Pandora will remain a premiere destination for audiences when his tales of Na'vi and unobtainium return, or if the film series might be headed towards the biggest sophomore slump in Hollywood's history.

avatar

The Death of 3D

Many could definitely make the argument that a flash-in-the-pan toy and a multi-million dollar film are apples and oranges, but in the case of Avatar, the fidget spinner comparison sticks more than one might expect. The reasoning behind this is yes, the movie brought in massive amounts of cash at the box office, but did it garner success for the wrong (gimmicky) reasons? Is Avatar the highest grossing film of all time because it was a great movie, or because it was a lightning in a bottle mash-up of the right technology releasing at the right time?

Just like popular commercial crazes, Hollywood sways in ebbs and flows as well. When Avatar released in 2009, it was in the midst of a 3D renaissance similar to the 1980s when almost every franchise released an entry to take advantage of the fad. But just like it did some 30 years ago, 3D is dying out once again.

RELATED: Avatar: Release Dates Confirmed For All 4 Sequels

During 2010 (the bulk of Avatar's theatrical run), 21% of domestic box office revenue came from the format, totaling $10.6 billion. Cut ahead to 2016, and that number dipped to 14%, despite the fact that overall box office totals were at an all-time high. Considering that over 80% of Avatar's domestic and international intake came from 3D presentations, this establishes a potential pitfall for its prospects going forward. Even Imax is taking action following the decline, recently revealing during an earning call that the company's 3D slate would be reduced following a "clear preference" for 2D at domestic theaters.

With 16% of Avatar's 3D intake brought in via IMAX presentations, the lack of tacked-on premiums creates an additional stumbling block for projecting the box office revenue of future sequels. Even if every single viewer returned, when discussing a film on this scale (the full budget of the first film is still unknown), every dollar counts.

Page 2: [valnet-url-page page=2 paginated=0 text='Why%20James%20Cameron%27s%20Avatar%20Sequel%20is%20Too%20Little%2C%20Too%20Late']



Too Little, Too Late

A specific example of this can be seen with Disney's most recent Alice in Wonderland series. Bolstered by 3D up-charges, the first film garnered over $1 billion worldwide, while its sequel six years later crashed and burned. Winding up missing even the $300 million mark, the movie suffered a 70% drop-off in revenue compared to its predecessor, effectively ending the franchise.

The damage above shows what can happen to a promising film series following a lenghty absence, and with Avatar 2 slated for December 18, 2020, Fox is playing with fire as they face a gap almost double that of Alice Through the Looking Glass.

A big part of Disney's financial and critical troubles with the Alice sequel can be traced directly to Tim Burton's lack of involvement with the second film. However, Robert Rodriguez encountered a similar reaction when Sin City: A Dame to Kill For released nine years after his original adaptation of the comic property. Even with the same director and bulk of its cast back on board, audiences seemed to lose all interest after so much time had progressed, and the box office numbers reflected it. The sequel brought in only $39 million, almost $120 million less than its predecessor's return.

Does Pandora Honestly Have More to Offer

Let's set aside the numbers and analyze the first movie from a narrative perspective for a moment. The quality of Avatar's storytelling can be summed up with one simple challenge: In ten seconds (without cheating and going to IMDB), provide the names of any three characters in the movie.

Not so easy, huh?

Some will be able to pass the test, but the fact that we're even having this conversation regarding a movie that got in the ballpark of 3 billion dollars is mind-numbing. No one is questioning the movie's spectacle appeal with its vibrant color palette and array of stunning 3D landscapes, but we are not talking about an amusement park ride, this is a movie. Each review using these aspects as a Band-aid for lack of character development and bad pacing are not caveats, they're excuses. A movie can be both groundbreaking in its technical capacities and also work as a three-act structure.

Visual advancements and story are not, and should not, be mutually exclusive.

For instance, apply the character name challenge to the first Matrix film. It takes a nano second to recall Neo, Trinity and Morpheus. Hell, even that movie's supporting characters are easier to remember than the bulk of the leads in Avatar. The Matrix's impact on cinema is still felt to this day (whether filmmakers are intentionally doing it or not), and doesn't require any qualifiers or conditions to discuss its overall quality. It simply works as a movie, instead of an attraction.

James Cameron's Level of Investment

After years of false starts and delays, it is now fair to question whether director James Cameron views this franchise in the same light as he does other entries in his personal catalog. The culprit behind the delay (besides Cameron may enjoying the payday that the first movie allotted him) might be his overt dislike of making sequels in general.

The only property that the director has helmed more than one entry for is Terminator, and with T2, the director approached the film with an entirely new mentality. Instead of the sci-fi/horror themes that propelled the first film, T2 switched gears and became a fast-paced actioner featuring established concepts, much like he did when continuing Ridley Scott's Alien.

RELATED: Disney’s Pandora: The World of Avatar Unveils Na’vi Shaman of Songs

There is ostensibly only so much to reinvent within the Avatar franchise given its visual focus and generic base line.

We can only wait and see what will happen with Fox's Avatar line-up, but do you believe James Cameron can work his magic once again and make Pandora a place worth returning to? Or will Avatar crumble under the expectations of its record-setting predecessor? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!