It by itself, perhaps. But is it completely necessary to make 4-5 Avatar sequels, in tandem? He's saying the Alien series is out of steam, and here he is putting all his chips on the table for a series that really isn't a series, yet, just a single film. Furthermore, the writing for that film was so bland and heavy handed, I can't imagine there being 1 or 2 sequels, let alone 4 or 5.
The man can say what he wants, and the fact that he's making sequels in and of itself has nothing to do with my skepticism . I don't think his question is without merit, but again, barring Prometheus, the last Alien film was made in 1997, right? It's been awhile. It's not like Cameron, himself, who's planning on churning one of these Avatar films out every two years without questioning his own motives under the same light, or the rumors behind him resurrecting the Terminator series, after many sub-par outings (all of which I enjoyed, on some level).
I just don't understand his question, given his own actions.
Is anything necessary? Gee, I don't know, Cameron. Ask that question of Shakespeare filmmakers, or Jane Austen nuts. TO them, it certainly is, because they enjoy it, just like you apparently enjoy making Avatar films. It just seems like a rhetorical question what's generated some friction from people who are more invested in the Alien series than Cameron is. Frankly I don't think he cares very much about anything except his own projects, right now, and merely offers Ridley some respect, regardless, because the man is his predecessor and a trailblazer.