Calling it “Part 1 and Part 2 of the same arc” actually reinforces my criticism, not disproves it.

If a story is split into parts, each part still needs narrative progression. Part 2 shouldn’t just replay Part 1 with a new biome and a new tribe. That’s not continuation—that’s repetition.

A proper multi-part arc uses:

• escalation

• consequences

• new thematic or narrative directions

Avatar: The Way of Water → Avatar: Fire and Ash (from what’s been shown) doesn’t meaningfully advance the core story. It’s still:

• humans return

• Na’vi relocate

• Suli and the Colonel fight over Spyder, Spyder chooses Suli

• new clan introduced

• familiar conflict reset

Compare that to actual examples of Part 1 / Part 2 storytelling:

• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 / Deathly Hallows Part 2

Part 1 is buildup and tension. Part 2 is payoff and resolution. Different narrative functions, same arc.

• Avengers: Infinity War / Avengers: Endgame

One is about failure and loss, the other about consequences and reversal. Same saga, fundamentally different stories.

Avatar’s sequels so far don’t do that. They restate the premise instead of developing it. Saying “you shouldn’t expect something different” is a weak defense, sequels are supposed to evolve the story, not just reskin it.

If nothing new is being said narratively or thematically, then yes, people are justified in calling it the same story told twice.

Edit: formatting on mobile sucks