James Cameron on ‘Avatar Fire and Ash’ Performance Capture, ‘Avatar 4’

“Nous verrons,” says James Cameron when asked about a specific plot point in “Avatar 4.” (That’s French for “we shall see,” he tells Variety.)

It’s the day after the “Avatar: Fire and Ash” world premiere, and it’s my turn to spend 10 minutes with the blockbuster filmmaker at the Four Seasons in Los Angeles, the hallways and lobby of which have been transformed to resemble Pandora for the press junket. (Thus, one might’ve expected Cameron to slip a little Na’vi into the interview, not French.)

But no matter what language he speaks, the filmmaker makes it known he’s not keen to discuss the future of the franchise — at least, not until the box office returns have been counted.

“We’re getting ahead of ourselves because, first of all, we’ve got to make some money with this one,” Cameron says. “Every time we go out, we have to prove this crazy business case yet again.

“The world has changed. We all know the stats, where theatrical is. It’s been a bad year,” he goes on. “It’s starting to perk up a little bit with a couple of recent releases: ‘Wicked: For Good’ has done well, and ‘Zootopia 2’ is doing well. So, we’ll see.”

Cameron is not being modest; he’s a pragmatist. His “Avatar” movies — about the adventures of Marine turned Na’vi leader Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), Na’vi warrior Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña) and their family — come with significant box office expectations. The original 2009 film and its 2022 sequel, “The Way of Water,” stand as two of the highest-grossing movies in history, with $2.9 billion and $2.3 billion, respectively. “Fire and Ash” earned a strong $345 million globally in its opening weekend, but that figure is down from “The Way of Water’s” $435 million start.

As Variety’s Rebecca Rubin explains in her box office analysis, Disney spent a massive $350 million to produce the threequel and roughly $150 million to promote it, meaning the big-budget blockbuster needs to deliver in terms of ticket sales for Cameron to move forward with his planned fourth and fifth installments. (For the record, “Avatar 4” is slated for Dec. 2029 and a significant portion of the film has already been shot, while “Avatar 5” is expected to debut Dec. 2031.)

In the meantime, “Avatar” super fans can also enjoy the making-of documentary, “Fire and Water,” where Cameron reveals how his groundbreaking performance capture process really works. Here, Cameron reflects on how the Disney+ documentary is changing the conversation around performance capture, particularly in the age of generative artificial intelligence, and more about making the new movie, like introducing Oona Chaplin’s villainous Varang and just how spicy her relationship with Quaritch (Stephen Lang) was intended to be.

You’ve said that you’re always a little nervous before these movies come out. Are you feeling a little better now?

It’s a good first step. People are responding well. I hadn’t seen it with a big audience before [the premiere], because we’ve done these small press screenings, and I don’t really go to those. There’s some laughs.

Did any of those laughs surprise you?

The strength of a couple of them surprised me. And then there’s some applause too. There are moments that appear to be quite cathartic for the audience — some of the quieter, emotional stuff. For that, I just look at my wife, Suzy [Amis]; if she’s grabbing her tissues, then I know the scene’s working. It’s a little harder to read that in a big room.

The crowd applauded for Zoe Saldaña’s performance as Neytiri. You’ve described her work on the “Avatar” movies as “ferocious,” and since we last spoke, she’s won an Oscar [for “Emilia Pérez”]. Do you think pulling the curtain back on how performance capture technology works helps audiences appreciate her performance differently?

That’s a really great way to put it. That’s exactly what I’ve been doing. I’ve hidden the performance capture methodology because I thought, “I don’t want to see people in a performance capture suit. I want them to think that the characters are real.” Right? But it’s been such a disservice to these actors who are doing some of the best work in their careers. I’ve got Kate Winslet, Academy Award winner; Zoe Saldaña won an Academy Award last year; Sigourney Weaver, a highly respected actress, nominated multiple times. And I just think, “Why am I hiding this under a bushel here? I should be celebrating it.”

We just take all the cinematography — all the cameras and the lenses and the lighting and all that stuff — and we just shove it into the future. It’s like black box theater or a stage rehearsal. A lot of my cast have done theater, and they go, “Oh, this is like, standing up a play.” It’s that quiet, intimate exploration. Everybody said, “Well, how can they possibly do that without all the sets and all the wardrobe?” Well, actors live in their imagination, right? And we give them the things they need. Sigourney said, “I’d really like to have a shawl or something that I can kind of pull around myself and hide behind as this kind of sulky and misunderstood teenager.” It’s like, “Sure, no problem.” It’s a wonderful process. And as a writer-director who’s created these characters, handing that baton to the actors, and then seeing what they do with it, there’s nothing better.

I learned that Sigourney, who plays Kiri, the Sullys’ adopted teenage daughter, actually narrates the next one.

That could be the case. We’re getting ahead of ourselves.

Oona Chaplin’s character, Varang, who leads the Ash people, steals the show. But her relationship with Quaritch takes a sexier turn than some people might expect. There’s a mutual seduction, but did you ever consider showing a Na’vi sex scene?

We never really shot anything beyond what you see. Let’s put it that way. We knew what we were going for was an undercurrent of sensuality, and it’s a PG-13 movie as well.

The bigger question is, why did we spend 10 minutes — which is an eternity in screen time — not on our main characters, not on our protagonist characters? And the answer is very simple: Because it was cool. That’s my ultimate modus operandi. If it’s cool, we’re gonna explore it. And I’m very proud of that scene where he goes to her, and they go inside the tent, and they tussle over the power. It’s a fun scene.

Much like Zoe, this film is a showcase for Oona’s talent. Many people know her from “Game of Thrones” [Chaplin played Talisa Maegyr, Robb Stark’s ill-fated wife], but this is her big screen breakout moment.

I didn’t know who Oona was when I cast her in 2016; I certainly hadn’t seen [“Game of Thrones.”]. But she had such a grasp of the character. Oona herself is just a very warm, beautiful, heartfelt person, almost the exact opposite [of Varang]. But isn’t that fun to play the opposite and find you have the ability to play that. It can be a little scary.

That’s that actor-director connection that you like to explore.

In an age of Gen AI chomping at the film industry, that’s another reason I’m pulling back the curtain to show that this is an actor-centric, artist-centric process, and we don’t use those tools. Historically, we haven’t used it at all.

I’m curious about what it can do that’s done ethically and constructively. I don’t want to replace actors, even though people are stampeding to [saying,] “Oh, I can make a film in my mom’s basement, and I don’t need to pay any actors. How cool is that?”

I’ve been mentoring some young filmmakers in New Zealand in a short film class, and I saw presentations for seven projects. All seven of them showed us their storyboards, their pre-viz, their music choices, their mood board, their character design. Not one of the presentations mentioned their cast. Afterwards, I said, “Guys, what the hell is going on here? You didn’t lead with your actors. Do you have actors?” [They said,] “Well, yeah.” And I said, “Why didn’t you lead with that?” I said, “You know what you all need to do when you get your films done? Go do some acting.” I think every director should do some acting. There’s a lot of acting in directing.