Jump to content
IGNORED

Avatar 2, 3, 4 & 5 - Part 2 delayed to Dec 2022


Goose
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 14/02/2019 at 23:09, Dirty Harry Potter said:

Nah.... its been dimishing for years. It’s still in theatres because the owner invested in the 3D systems - and doing a 3D conversion of any movie is relatively cheap.

 

 

 

Cinemas seem very confused about their stance on it. Odeon are running “See Detective Pikachu in 3D to get an exclusive card!” ads all over social media, but then the comments are full of people saying “but my local Odeon isn’t showing it in 3D!”, “None of the Odeons in London are!” etc. Even my local just has one screening out of the 13 a day on opening weekend in 3D, despite all the pushing for the format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, a lot of the investment in 3d was actually driven by the studios rather than the cinema chains, they couldn't give a fuck, hence loads of cinemas still stuck in the dark ages. 

The cost of upgrading cinemas to take hdds instead of reels was mainly the studios and yet still cinema chains take half of all ticket sales (as a general average). It's a really weird industry on many levels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Disney release plan available, it would seem that they've agreed to pay for the other two films definitely now, rather than waiting to see how the next two perform before agreeing to finance the final two.

 

 

1 hour ago, b00dles said:

and yet still cinema chains take half of all ticket sales (as a general average). It's a really weird industry on many levels. 

 

Isn't the counter view to this that because the cinemas only get half the money, they are forced to make you sit through adverts and push overpriced food to actually make any money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, mushashi said:

With the Disney release plan available, it would seem that they've agreed to pay for the other two films definitely now, rather than waiting to see how the next two perform before agreeing to finance the final two.

 

 

 

Isn't the counter view to this that because the cinemas only get half the money, they are forced to make you sit through adverts and push overpriced food to actually make any money.

Yeah possibly but I always thought (from working on the production side of the table) that it's weird that cinema chains get half even though they do nothing towards actually making the film. Swings and roundabouts I guess but it seemed a bit of an odd balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is a big shame, but it's his choice, I don't think 20th Century Fox forced him at gunpoint to make 5 of these films for over 2 decades of his life :)

 

He had both Gunnm and a story about the American nuclear bombing of Japan he would have done if he had not decided to do these instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just realised Cameron hasn't worked with Arnold for 25 years. We are old.

 

Avatar is fucking shite. It feels like something the member berries in South Park would take the piss out of. Nobody ever talks about, there's no merch, it doesn't occupy any headspace in the average nerd.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Down by Law said:

Nobody ever talks about, there's no merch, it doesn't occupy any headspace in the average nerd.

 

This is true. Some SF&F/horror franchises (e.g. Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who) retained an active fandom and a stream of official tie-in stories even during the long periods when nothing was being produced in the original film/TV format. Others (like The Matrix) just sort of dwindled away once official films/comics/games stopped being produced.

 

At this point it seems like on the Internet, the most talked about thing about Avatar is that no one ever talks about it!

 

But there is one major official Avatar product designed to keep it in the public eye... it got its own Disney theme park:

 

 

I wouldn't expect anyone to watch the entire thing (though I did when she uploaded it in December :mellow:), but skip to 55:40 for a short 30-second story that illustrates the point about how little cultural impact it has retained since 2010.

 

Also skip to 6:30 for a neat summary of how Disney ended up deciding to make an Avatar-themed theme park in the first place. ("What? Why? Noooo.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cameron has been a busted flush for over 2 decades.

 

One of the most self indulgent directors of all time. He has talent but he needs a good editor/producer to rein him in to prevent him producing overlong self indulgent shite.

 

even some of his best films could do with trimming. His best film by far is Terminator which had to be tight as fuck due to budget etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I just find it baffling that it's been in production since 2017 - look at this proposed release schedule 

 

Quote

 

Cameron recently explained that Stephen Lang’s Colonel Miles Quaritch is coming back for all four sequels and will be the main villain throughout the story. Filming officially started on Avatar 2 and Avatar 3 on September 25, 2017.

 

After some shuffling of the schedule, Avatar 2 has been pushed back a full year from December 18, 2020, to December 17, 2021. Avatar 3 has been pushed back two years December 17, 2021 to December 22, 2023. Avatar 4 will open two years after that on December 19, 2025 (originally December 20, 2024) and Avatar 5 will drop on December 17, 2027 (originally December 19, 2025). Although Avatar 4 and Avatar 5 will only be released with director James Cameron’s caveat that Avatar 2 and 3 are successful at the box office.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Although Avatar 4 and Avatar 5 will only be released with director James Cameron’s caveat that Avatar 2 and 3 are successful at the box office.

 

Only released at the cinema? Or at all? Will James Cameron burn from existence Avatar 4 and 5 if only we ignore 2 and 3 i think we can collectively commit to this if nothing else i don't understand what it means. 

 

I never thought of it like these sequels are taking up James Cameron's directing time that he could be putting into other projects, i just sort of accepted he was completely gone and any brilliance he once possessed couldn't be salvaged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much like the previously mentioned potential sequels to Alita: Battle Angel, they'll only happen if the films proceeding it get enough people voting with their wallets, which is pretty much how every single film sequel gets a release, isn't it?

 

He may already have the scripts, but won't go ahead with full production if Avatar 2 & 3 don't make enough money, simple as.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to see people writing Cameron and these sequels off. I'm as hacked off as the rest that he could be making any number of other films. :(

 

However, the thing everyone seems to be forgeting is that he is an absolute BEAST. He is so driven, so knowledgable, so fucking passionate, that you've got to admire him. Sure, he's vain as fuck but he does back it up by really really knowing his shit and leading from the front. Is he too powerful? Absolutely, but I'm willing to bet when the first proper trailer drops for the sequel, it'll blow our socks off visually. I'm not saying it'll be a great film, but it.. might, because it's by Jim fucking Cameron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually i still have some hope left. I've long forgotten how disappointed i was in Avatar's uninspired generic art direction and how interminable it was to endure. With so many films he might just fluke some moments that won't cause further apathy. 

 

Avatar was rubbish because everything about it was designed to be so general to assure it made billions. Every decision in these sequels will again be shaped by the cost and need to generate money, but being sequels and there being so many it feels more like there might be room to throw in a curveball and occasionally be subversive and interesting. They're fixed to the Avatar world which isn't interesting, but with sci fi there could be something. 

 

I loved Valerian, you can just go through that film and jot down all its ideas, which some choose to ignore as though it's trying to be anything more than cartoony irreverent fun, like a 90s Saturday morning cartoon. But it was imaginative and was fun. Avatar was marketed as the future yet came after a decade of videogames doing way more interesting future worlds. With James Cameron attached, reading about its story, after playing Metroid Prime and especially Echoes 6 years before i expected more. To generate money it mostly needed to be an event film which it became, you gotta see what everyone else is to stay 'in'. But Cameron wanted to do a love story no one cared about, he clearly thought he needed that following on from Titanic to draw in the non sci fi nerds. I guess we'll never know.

 

Remember people at the time saying they wished they lived in Pandora. I just thought; it's a jungle. With some fluorescent flowers. Star Trek kind of touched on different types of societies and how they're structured, i even like K Pax for that. I hope for more from an alien world than a jungle with some jaguars, exotic flowers and six legged horses. Gotta try harder, and all the concept art suggests they did try in that American way of hours worked and as the best concept artists do making mechanical logical sense of everything, but all within narrow parameters. Take the synopsis, slash the budget to 1 million, hand it to a Japanese filmmaker, that's the film I'd rather see. 

 

My dad has the art book and swears by its creative brilliance, and can't fathom why anyone would dislike it. 'I thought everyone thought it was top?', said in a way like his heart was breaking....how to explain some art is inspired and most isn't. 'Nah I'm not having this!'

 

yeah..be genuinely creative and not overlong and boring, is all i hope for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Cameron on high framerate 3D:

 

https://collider.com/avatar-sequels-no-hfr-james-cameron/

 

Quote

“I’ve seen some clips from Gemini Man. I haven’t seen the picture yet because I’m down here in New Zealand. I’m interested to see it. I mean, I have a personal philosophy around high frame rate, which is that it is a specific solution to specific problems having to do with 3D. And when you get the strobing and the jutter of certain shots that pan or certain lateral movement across frame, it’s distracting in 3D. And to me, it’s just a solution for those shots. I don’t think it’s a format. That’s just me personally. I know Ang doesn’t see it that way. I don’t think it’s like the next 70 millimeter or the next big thing. I think it’s a tool to be used to solve problems in 3D projection. And I’ll be using it sparingly throughout the Avatar films, but they won’t be in high frame rate. But I am curious to see what they came up with. Have you guys seen it? And you saw a high frame rate screening?

 

Yes. Actually, underwater stuff in particular really stood out.

 

Well, this is the thing. To me, the more mundane the subject, two people talking in the kitchen, the worse it works, because you feel like you’re in a set of a kitchen with actors in makeup. That’s how real it is, you know? But I think when you’ve got extraordinary subjects that are being shot for real, or even through CG, that hyper-reality actually works in your favor. So to me, it’s a wand that you wave in certain moments and use when you need it. It’s an authoring tool.”

 

The only 48fps 3D film I've seen was the second Hobbit film. I liked the novelty of the sensation and would see more films in that format (though Gemini Man doesn't interest me). As Cameron says, the only times I found it a distracting issue was in the more mundane, still dialogue scenes (Gandalf and Bilbo talking before going into Mirkwood is the one that sticks in my mind). However, the issue I had in those scenes was not that it was drawing attention to the artificiality of the set, lighting and makeup - it was that it magnified every tiny movement twitch so that it felt like the characters were speeded up, in a scene when they were mostly still. It was like they were going fast and slow at the same time - like a visual equivalent of going into a digital audio editor and increasing the tempo of a sound while keeping the pitch the same.

 

Interesting that he comments that he could use HFR "sparingly"... how is that possible? Can the cinema projectors instantly switch between 24fps and higher framerates partway through a film (say, just for those lateral panning shots that he mentions)? Or would the projector be running at its high framerate throughout, but the sections shot in 24fps would duplicate frames? It's hard to imagine how swapping framerates wouldn't be more distracting then sticking to one throughout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I even want to see these films unless they have the "cutting edge novelty" selling point of a ridiculous framerate. It's pretty much the only reason I kept going to see the mediocre Hobbit films at the expensive cinema. How disappointing.

 

High framerate in sweeping wide shots and busy action scenes, and low framerate during quiet talking bits, is pretty much how videogames work but in reverse. I don't think my brain can take that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not arsed about HFR in films. To be honest, as visual effects in movies are mostly built around CGI, stuff like Gemini Man and Avatar striving for ultra realism through framerate increases just makes things more video gamey in a 'PC-chasing-the-high res/hi FPS dream' kinda way.

 

Comparing the handful of influential Directors trying to push cinema down new technical avenues, I think Christopher Nolan's attempts (particularly the model work in Interstellar) are much more interesting. I'd rather see how far we can push the mechanical and physical side of film production - blending a large volume of real-world, in-camera SFX into a seamless whole by tweaking them using VFX - more than how we can reverse engineer CGI so that those VFX characters look less uncanny valley than they do.

 

There's room for both approaches, of course, but (as a few people have said) dedicating your twilight years to something with such a forgotten cultural footprint feels like a waste when we could have had three or four films out of Jim. None of them set in Avatar's boring universe, either.

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.