James Cameron's Avatar Sequels Possible Titles Revealed

[thribs]

I watched the new 2022 version of Avatar today and if anyone is curious, there is a clip to the new movie during the credits; featuring what I believe is Sully's son and some sort of whale like creature.

 

[David cgc]

I also saw the remaster today. I haven't seen the original all the way through since the extra-extended DVD came out and then, only on DVD, so I don't have a strong memory of what it looked like qualitatively, but this release definitely seemed better than it should've been for something shot and mastered at 2K on relatively primitive digital cameras. Live-action footage seemed sharp throughout, with none of the 2K-to-4K softness I've noticed in other contemporary movies, and the CG likewise looked better than I remembered, with only a couple of things that looked off (the fire on Jake's improvised torch in the early scene when he's alone in the forest, and a sky that looked pretty low-res and blurred out when all the Na'vi were sent out to gather the other tribes for their counterattack).

I'm really curious about what they actually did to remaster the film, and if Avatar was just more cutting-edge than I remember, or if they actually went back and rebuilt the movie using today's technology applied to the original animation.

Though, that being said, the preview for Avatar 2 did look head-and-shoulders above the remaster, even taking into account that there were a couple moments during the remaster when the Na'vi or avatars were eating or drinking something and I momentarily thought, "Wow, it must've been a lot of work to keep the makeup from running or smudging in this shot," before I remembered they were animated.

There also seemed to be some chicanery going on in the main movie and the preview with variable frame-rates. There were occasional shots in both that seemed to be in high frame rates, and a couple shots in the preview where the frame-rate felt like it dipped down below 24 and the action was stuttering. Don't know what that means, it might've just been something weird with the 3D playback (which, IIRC, is at something like 120 or 240 FPS for technical reasons, it's just showing the same frame five or ten times switching back-and-forth between left-eye and right-eye).

 

[JD]

I read an interview with James Cameron the other day and he said they did use high-frame rates for a few scenes.

 

[thribs]

I read an interview with James Cameron the other day and he said they did use high-frame rates for a few scenes.

For the original or the sequels?

 

[thribs]

I also saw the remaster today. I haven't seen the original all the way through since the extra-extended DVD came out and then, only on DVD, so I don't have a strong memory of what it looked like qualitatively, but this release definitely seemed better than it should've been for something shot and mastered at 2K on relatively primitive digital cameras. Live-action footage seemed sharp throughout, with none of the 2K-to-4K softness I've noticed in other contemporary movies, and the CG likewise looked better than I remembered, with only a couple of things that looked off (the fire on Jake's improvised torch in the early scene when he's alone in the forest, and a sky that looked pretty low-res and blurred out when all the Na'vi were sent out to gather the other tribes for their counterattack).

I'm really curious about what they actually did to remaster the film, and if Avatar was just more cutting-edge than I remember, or if they actually went back and rebuilt the movie using today's technology applied to the original animation.

Though, that being said, the preview for Avatar 2 did look head-and-shoulders above the remaster, even taking into account that there were a couple moments during the remaster when the Na'vi or avatars were eating or drinking something and I momentarily thought, "Wow, it must've been a lot of work to keep the makeup from running or smudging in this shot," before I remembered they were animated.

There also seemed to be some chicanery going on in the main movie and the preview with variable frame-rates. There were occasional shots in both that seemed to be in high frame rates, and a couple shots in the preview where the frame-rate felt like it dipped down below 24 and the action was stuttering. Don't know what that means, it might've just been something weird with the 3D playback (which, IIRC, is at something like 120 or 240 FPS for technical reasons, it's just showing the same frame five or ten times switching back-and-forth between left-eye and right-eye).

I agree about the fire. I don’t know if that was the HDR but it looked way too vibrant to be fire that it looked fake.
Speaking of fire, did they ever mention what the atmosphere of Pandora is? I believe there is oxygen which explains how he can light fire and why their breathers seem to be just filters but they don’t mention what pother gas is present that will cause a human to die in 4 minutes if he was to breath it.

 

[JD]

For the original or the sequels?

I believe it was the original, that was what the interview was talking about.

 

[crookeddy]

Re release estimated to make 9 million this weekend. Not sure if that's good or bad. They might have wanted a bit more if they really redid all the effects from scratch.

 

[thribs]

Re release estimated to make 9 million this weekend. Not sure if that's good or bad. They might have wanted a bit more if they really redid all the effects from scratch.

I’m sure any additional money is just icing on the cake now.

 

[David cgc]

I agree about the fire. I don’t know if that was the HDR but it looked way too vibrant to be fire that it looked fake.

It looked like a low-detail 2D element to me, there was no detail in it, it just seemed like a flat blob of yellow light, where I'd expect to see some definition and 3D detail within the flames.

Speaking of fire, did they ever mention what the atmosphere of Pandora is? I believe there is oxygen which explains how he can light fire and why their breathers seem to be just filters but they don’t mention what pother gas is present that will cause a human to die in 4 minutes if he was to breath it.

According to behind-the-scenes/tie-in material cited on the Avatar fan-wiki, the atmosphere is primarily toxic to humans because of a high concentration of carbon dioxide (over 18%, compared to less than 0.05% on Earth).

 

[thribs]

That’s interesting. I wonder if the Na’vi require oxygen like us but they can withstand the higher CO2 levels. They might be able to breath on Earth if the Oxygen levels are the same.

 

[thribs]

It looked like a low-detail 2D element to me, there was no detail in it, it just seemed like a flat blob of yellow light, where I'd expect to see some definition and 3D detail within the flames.

Interesting. I will need to check out my 3D copy. I would think the fire would be real when they filmed it with the 3D cameras and so it should have the detail.

 

[Markonian]

I'm tempted to watch the sequels in the cinema, if cinemas are still around when release comes round.
Perhaps this time TPBT release models/toys of the spacecraft.

 

[thribs]

I'm tempted to watch the sequels in the cinema, if cinemas are still around when release comes round.
Perhaps this time TPBT release models/toys of the spacecraft.

They should still be around in December.

 

[Tosk]

I can't speak for the remaster, but the torch seems reasonable photo-real on the Blu-ray.

Interesting. I will need to check out my 3D copy. I would think the fire would be real when they filmed it with the 3D cameras and so it should have the detail.

Jake is in his Avatar in the forest, the scene is fully CG.

 

[thribs]

I can't speak for the remaster, but the torch seems reasonable photo-real on the Blu-ray.

Jake is in his Avatar in the forest, the scene is fully CG.

Well obviously but I’m talking about the torch. I don’t think that was cgi.

 

[Tosk]

Well obviously but I’m talking about the torch. I don’t think that was cgi.

So am I. The scene is completely CG. Everything was acted out in performance capture, which includes rudimentary props, but everything is rendered for the final shot.

 

[crookeddy]

Disney reports 56% guys led, with 54% between 18-34 attending. Of those buying tickets, 93% chose to do so in 3D. Broken down that’s 39% Traditional 3D, 27% Imax 3D (which grossed $2.9, repping 29% of the pic’s weekend B.O.), 21% PLF 3D, and 6% motion 3D.

 

[JD]

I'm tempted to watch the sequels in the cinema, if cinemas are still around when release comes round.

Are things really doing so bad that theaters might be gone in 3 or 4 months? I thought things had picked up since the pandemic ended.

 

[crookeddy]

Are things really doing so bad that theaters might be gone in 3 or 4 months? I thought things had picked up since the pandemic ended.

Theaters were at low profit margins before the pandemic, so any loss of revenue is hard to recover from. Also, almost all theaters are part of a chain, so if a chain sites down all theaters that are a part of it will shut down, even the popular ones

 

[Reverend]

Are things really doing so bad that theaters might be gone in 3 or 4 months? I thought things had picked up since the pandemic ended.

"Ended"? It ain't over yet.

As for cinemas "picking up" isn't very significant when the bar of the last few years was essentially at zero. They're still not even close to the 2019 numbers, and that's with a hike in average ticket prices.