Avatar 2 to be shot at 48fps
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
What was wrong with Stephen Lang's performance?
You're wrong. About CG not having motion blur, that is, not the looking fake part. Lack of blur is why stop-motion looks fake, but all professional CG packages have motion blur as part of their render engines. And if shots are rendered without blur, there's ways for compositors to add it in post. CGI effects almost always have the appropriate level of motion blur on them.
I don't care, as long as Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a super muscular chief of a Na'vi warrior tribe.
Then he'll have done it again.
It just takes looking at the publicity and trailers for this summer's upcoming "blockbusters" to appreciate how challenging it seems to be for big-budget film makers to come up with structurally cohesive stories that don't rely entirely on kinetics and noise to hold the viewer's attention. One reason that Avatar - and Titanic, thank you very much - are the most successful films in history is that the stories and characters make sense to and connect with such a vast audience of all kinds of people. Geeks bitching about the familiarity of it are just lost in the forest.
(Now - cue someone with a list of plot points they find illogical about the film, demonstrating no understanding of what a story is as distinct from plotting).
These movies work for most people because most people want something more essential from movies than skiffy titillation.
Ah, fuck your smug self-satisfaction. Avatar's characters were dull and lifeless, especially Jakesully. I paid my $16 just like everyone else and walked out of the theater entirely bored by them. I'm glad Cameron's hard work neted him a squillion dollars, but don't think that just because people paid to see the film they were as enamored of its every aspect as you were.
On second thought, Col. Quaritch was kind of interesting, I guess. But that's because Stephen Lang is awesome.
On second thought, Col. Quaritch was kind of interesting, I guess. But that's because Stephen Lang is awesome.
I liked Avatar, but it's Cameron's worst. I enjoyed every other movie he did, including Titanic, much more. Quaritch was the best thing about it. Too bad they killed him off.
Hated Titanic, didn't watch Avatar. Despite their huge successes, those two movies were just not my thing. Its hard to complain about plot points and characters when they are barely worthy of pulp fictions. (not referring to the movie)
You bring up a very good point that Dennis doesn't seem to care about...
THE TICKETS COST MORE!
Mine didn't, both 2D and 3D were the same price, but many places they are not. Avatar is like 14th and Titanic is 6th all time with the guess of inflation prices.
Plus Titanic had a story, it is a story before it was written as a movie so half the work was done for Cameron. Plus it's a love story and 13 year old girls saw it 6-7-8 times.
Titanic and Avatar are fine movies for what they are, they are entertaining which is all they need to be, but the story of Avatar didn't matter one bit because everyone went to see it because it looked amazing in 3D.
Gep Malakai already pointed out that you are wrong about that; the only 'problem' I could see for CGI would be the render-times - double the frame-rate, double the render-time.
Twice the frame rate mean twice the shutter speed, right? Which means it'll look like shit. In my opinion of course. Didn't I read an article about that strobe effect from Saving Private Ryan that no one really likes because it's already way too over used just a few days ago?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpPnfEME02A
I hate it personally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpPnfEME02A
I hate it personally.
And doubtless when he succeeds again there will be legions of people complaining on the Internet that it gives them headaches and takes them out of the movie. C'est la guerre.
So what is it about technology that turns people into pricks when they encounter someone who points out legitimate flaws and shortcomings about their new favorite toy?
(Warning from mods expected and accepted without argument.)
If Cameron has developed a way for 3-D to not look like shit, then more power to him. And maybe this is the next step to removing the glasses from the equation in a theatrical setting. But no one has made (and in my opinion can make) a case for 3-D being NECESSARY for telling a story. It can be done with sound, and color, and even to a degree high-resolution imagery. But no one can come up with a legitimate reason why 3-D is necessary to tell the story of The Great Gatsby, for example, except as a gimmick to sell tickets and an excuse to bump prices. And sell 3-D TVs to those who leap before they look, of course.
Alex
And doubtless when he succeeds again there will be legions of people complaining on the Internet that it gives them headaches and takes them out of the movie. C'est la guerre.
So what is it about technology that turns people into pricks when they encounter someone who points out legitimate flaws and shortcomings about their new favorite toy?
(Warning from mods expected and accepted without argument.)
If Cameron has developed a way for 3-D to not look like shit, then more power to him. And maybe this is the next step to removing the glasses from the equation in a theatrical setting. But no one has made (and in my opinion can make) a case for 3-D being NECESSARY for telling a story. It can be done with sound, and color, and even to a degree high-resolution imagery. But no one can come up with a legitimate reason why 3-D is necessary to tell the story of The Great Gatsby, for example, except as a gimmick to sell tickets and an excuse to bump prices. And sell 3-D TVs to those who leap before they look, of course.
Alex
Wait, since when is color and high resolution in any way necessary for telling a story? The only movie I can think of where color actually played a part of the story was Pleasantville. Not even Schindler's List needed the red dress gimmick. And does the story of a movie change in some way when I go from DVD to bluray?
Indeed, I know quite a number of stories which make do without even a picture.
When is the next scratch and sniff movie coming out?
I'm actually pretty interested in how this will look. I personally can notice quite a difference in video games between 30 and 60 fps.
I think movie theaters will be pretty angry for having to buy new projectors yet again.
