Jump to content

Avatar 2, 3 and 4 or how James Cameron stopped worrying and pulled The Hobbit on us


crocodile

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Jay said:

 

That's an incredibly misleading headline. And that is besides the fact that the article is 4 months old.

 

Reading the article, it says the live action filming is 100% complete. The movie is not.

 

A complete movie wouldn't wait 2 years to release. And he even goes on to say the  movie itself is not finished.

 

So yes, Avatar 2 is most definitely not 100% complete and won't be until the end of the year - 2022.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

That's an incredibly misleading headline. And that is besides the fact that the article is 4 months old.

 

Reading the article, it says the live action filming is 100% complete. The movie is not.

 

A complete movie wouldn't wait 2 years to release. And he even goes on to say the  movie itself is not finished.

 

So yes, Avatar 2 is most definitely not 100% complete and won't be until the end of the year - 2022.

Yeah, for an Avatar film, saying the principal photography is 100% complete really means only about a third of actual film is done. Then again, the VFX houses have certainly been working at flank speed this whole time to create the Avatar water world, so who knows...

 

BTW, I'm really excited for these films. I can't wait for more James Cameron-style moviemaking. And he's the only one who can justify the bother and effort of 3D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bayesian said:

BTW, I'm really excited for these films. I can't wait for more James Cameron-style moviemaking. And he's the only one who can justify the bother and effort of 3D.

 

Ridley Scott did a fantastic job shooting native 3D on Prometheus, especially with those big practical sets.

 

It's the deluge of post-conversion hatchet-jobs that killed 3D. Most filmmakers didn't understand how to integrate 3D, cinematographers weren't shooting their films to accommodate depth (most 3D films were post-converted), and studios saw dollar signs and inflated ticket prices. In the greatest cliche of all, greed killed their golden goose.

 

When TFA was released 80% of sessions were 3D and 20% 2D, a number inverted by the time TROS released. Audiences avoided 3D sessions like the plague and complained endlessly about the glasses/projection brightness, so exhibitors responded.

 

I've no doubt Cameron will do an amazing job integrating 3D but it doesn't change the overriding issue -- that native 3D is time-consuming, bulky and expensive (3 things filmmakers hate) and 99% of directors still don't understand how to use the technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, crumbs said:

 

Ridley Scott did a fantastic job shooting native 3D on Prometheus, especially with those big practical sets.

I hadn’t seen that one in theaters... or afterwards. I feel like I would’ve enjoyed it, reading this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Big Man said:

Someone to Watch Over Me and Black Rain say no.

 

Haven't seen them so can't comment, but I consider Scott in the same category as Spielberg. There's always something to admire, even in their worst films.

 

Always is a stinker but it has some impressive model/VFX work, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, crumbs said:

Every Ridley Scott film is worth a look IMO, just to admire his visuals and direction. Covenant was a lot more disappointing to me than Prometheus, if only because it jettisoned most of the potential the latter finished with.

Obviously, you haven't seen Hannibal. But of you liked Prometheus, which to me was just a bundle of crap...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, crumbs said:

It's no masterpiece but it's certainly not the abomination the internet calls it. If nothing else, it's utterly gorgeous to watch, has lots of thought-provoking ideas, and absolutely delivers when it needs to.

 

I thought I was the only one that felt this way. Like it's not perfect, but something about it just causes it to hold together very well for me, and it is indeed gorgeous. I like Prometheus more than I like Avatar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really liked Prometheus, thought Avatar was fine, haven't seen Covenant.

 

Avatar was a really satisfying visceral experience in the theaters, but I can't say it had a single thing that stuck with me, besides the groaner name Unobtainium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding 3D - I've been noticing a theme in my preferences lately.

 

For things like media in theme parks, the goal is typically true immersion. The more you feel like you're really there, the better. So in that setting, I'll happily take a 3D Omnimax movie at 60 fps with high dynamic range, 4D effects, moving seats, and binaural headphones. Suck me in as much as possible.

 

But if I'm sitting in a theater to watch a film, I'm still a sucker for a flat 2.35:1 rectangle with all the glorious blurry judder of 24 fps. I think that going cinematic and going immersive do not often go hand-in-hand, and I see a lot of value in both approaches. They're different art forms with different goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I always thought the people who came up with and/or marketed these gimmicks that "Make you feel like you're IN the movie!!!" have no idea how/why people watch movies and get engaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure. I've only ever seen the HFR work in a way that I liked once and it was because it was story motivated. I can't even see 3-D so I don't give a damn about it. Though, I'm the odd one out in my friend group, so my first experience with Avatar was through the glasses, which just made the movie dark without the 3-D effect for me. Lol. Luckily they've all moved on from it as well so I don't get forced to see movies that way anymore and at least the glasses are more neutral now anyways.

 

Being forced to go to 3-D movies as a kid and watch the whole movie with a red tint was awful.

 

At the end of the day for me, a film's immersion has ZERO to do with 3-D, HFR, Cinema4D, or any of that crap, and more to do with engaging stories and characters, a good "vibe", excellent sound design and cinematography, and of course a score that resonates with me. Those make me feel like I'm "there"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

Avatar isn't bad, but I'll admit I resent Cameron's dedication to that series and nothing else, really

 

Same but I’m at least waiting for 2 before I get all that mad about it. It’ll still be James Cameron’s first movie in more than a decade, that has some weight no matter what it is. Pretty sure there will be things about it that aren’t like anybody else is doing. And I’d never begrudge him an Avatar 2, anyway.

 

By the time Avatar 5 rolls around, idk how I’ll feel about how he’s applying himself. Probably not thrilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

For sure. I've only ever seen the HFR work in a way that I liked once and it was because it was story motivated. I can't even see 3-D so I don't give a damn about it. Though, I'm the odd one out in my friend group, so my first experience with Avatar was through the glasses, which just made the movie dark without the 3-D effect for me. Lol. Luckily they've all moved on from it as well so I don't get forced to see movies that way anymore and at least the glasses are more neutral now anyways.

 

Being forced to go to 3-D movies as a kid and watch the whole movie with a red tint was awful.

 

At the end of the day for me, a film's immersion has ZERO to do with 3-D, HFR, Cinema4D, or any of that crap, and more to do with engaging stories and characters, a good "vibe", excellent sound design and cinematography, and of course a score that resonates with me. Those make me feel like I'm "there"

 

I differentiate between emotional immersion and physical immersion. I think you're talking about the former, which is totally compatible with a cinematic feel and generally a "must" for compelling filmmaking. As you say, these technologies have very little to do with whether you get lost in the emotional journey of the characters and story.

 

If you're going for physical immersion, these technologies can help by making it easier to pretend that you have been literally transported into this world depicted onscreen. But as I mentioned, I don't think this goal is very compatible with a traditionally cinematic feel, nor with unthemed spaces like theaters or living rooms. And I think it's totally independent from the component of emotional immersion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avatar 1 was shot by Mauro Fiore, and the second was shot by Russel Carpenter, who worked with Cameron in Titanic. Let's see how different visually this movie will be from its predecessor.

 

Fox, I mean, Disney could really release a trailer this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 4 months later...

I recently re-watched just the climactic battle scene from Avatar and it's actually shocking how badly done it is considering it's Cameron.  The editing is just borderline amateurish in how choppy and incoherent it feels and don't get me started on how noticeably chopped up Horner's score is.  I have to think they were insanely pressed for time or something with that sequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Avatar was fine at the time, nothing special but fine.  Have felt that way about most of Cameron’s movies, tbh.

 

I will always remember the lead character’s name is Jake Sully because of this dumb webcomic from Emmy Cicierega (who has gone on to work on DuckTales, Gravity Falls, and The Owl House),  at the time that has crawled into my brain and stayed there.

 

37EFCA62-8EE1-41B6-AFE6-578EBD325588.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameron only produces those, right? He's too busy making kissy-eyes with his blue alien cat people to care about any other property at this point. He couldn't even properly guide his OG baby back to relevance. And I admit that despite being of the rare breed who enjoyed Dark Fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Cameron only produced it.  Alita was a good show of what Robert Rodriguez can do with time and a ton of money (as opposed to most of his movies which are shot on the quick and on the cheap).  It’s a good sign for whatever he’s up to on Star Wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.