Movies Avatar 2 releasing December 16, to be titled “Avatar: The Way of Water”, original film to be remastered for theaters, update: Avatar 3 (2024), Avatar 4 (2026), and Avatar 5 (2028) announced

[skillzdadirecta]

20 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

ask them why

Because James Cameron that's why.

[TheLeon]

If the movie is that long and that wet, an intermission for pee breaks should be required by law. 

[Brick]

5 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I went to see the original Avatar with a group of liberal/left-leaning friends and practically all of them laughed through the entire thing at how annoyingly preachy/on-the-nose the experience turned out to be.

 

One of them said that she was pretty sure that she now had permanent physical damage from how often she rolled her eyes at it

 

And this one will probably have heavy handed messages about saving the oceans. 

[Guest]

I’m sitting here watching the 2D 4K 48fps version and I highly recommend checking it out if any theater near you is playing that version. It’s something else

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

I’m sitting here watching the 2D 4K 48fps version and I highly recommend checking it out if any theater near you is playing that version. It’s something else

 

But that would require me to actually watch this movie!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

But that would require me to actually watch this movie!

Nah, go watch something else and just sneak in to an Avatar show for 10 minutes 👀👀👀

[Greatoneshere]

I heard the 48fps is so bad because what they are showing the press is Cameron's "hack" for it which is basically he has scenes, even sometimes one shot be at 24fps and then another shot (even within action scenes) go to 48fps. Apparently it's horrible and worse than had the whole thing been either 24fps or 48fps because it's a lot of speeding up and slowing down and it's apparently very jarring because you can't get into a rhythm with the film. Reviews overall have been strong for the film so not sure how true this is? I don't always trust Polygon but it sounds annoying. Either way my plan was always to watch this in 3D 24fps if/when that's possible and barring that, then 2D 24fps. Similar films where they had 48fps (all the way through, not this jarring stuff) were Ang Lee's two films Gemini Man and Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk and Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy and in all 5 of those instances, seeing the movies come off like a documentary or a sports game has always been jarring to me. They just aren't there yet - everything looks like a set, like a prop, like a costume, it's weird.

 

Avatar 2 marks a dramatic step forward for director James Cameron

WWW.POLYGON.COM

---

But The Way of Water is a step back for the endlessly distracting HFR presentation

 

 

[Guest]

There are definitely some shifts between 48 and 24, it doesn’t seem to be super frequent within a given sequence though I’m only about 65 minutes in. I don’t think it is jarring though, but that seems like a very personal experience thing. It kinda reminds me of video games changing rates between live gameplay and cutscenes.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, sblfilms said:

There are definitely some shifts between 48 and 24. I don’t think it is jarring though, but that seems like a very personal experience thing. It kinda reminds me of video games changing rates between live gameplay and cutscenes.

 

That sounds reasonable if it's like that, though I still don't like it over just regular ol' 24fps. The Polygon reviewer (no surprise) really hated it (despite otherwise loving the film, to be fair).

[Guest]

Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

That sounds reasonable if it's like that, though I still don't like it over just regular ol' 24fps. The Polygon reviewer (no surprise) really hated it (despite otherwise loving the film, to be fair).

I think a lot of this is generational. My two boys and nephew are here and they were all talking amongst themselves and then asked why it “looks like a video game?” I explained it, and they were then wondering why all movies don’t look like that because it looks “way better”.

 

I still love the feel of 24fps for true live action, but I think it would be cool to see more content in both formats and just let consumers vote with their dollars. It is a little tricky though, shooting for 48fps require a lot more light on set to achieve the same luminance at 24fps. That changes all sorts of things, like reflections and even makeup on the actors.

[Greatoneshere]

11 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I think a lot of this is generational. My two boys and nephew are here and they were all talking amongst themselves and then asked why it “looks like a video game?” I explained it, and they were then wondering why all movies don’t look like that because it looks “way better”.

 

I still love the feel of 24fps for true live action, but I think it would be cool to see more content in both formats and just let consumers vote with their dollars. It is a little tricky though, shooting for 48fps require a lot more light on set to achieve the same luminance at 24fps. That changes all sorts of things, like reflections and even makeup on the actors.

 

Yeah, this is all very true. I play a lot of video games, and I don't really like the feel of it when I'm just watching it as a movie (when I'm actually playing, it's totally fine). I can do it, but it's disconcerting, and the more live action the movie is (Avatar 2 is basically all CG) like Gemini Man or Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, it becomes unbelievable because real people moving around like a video game is jarring until they figure out a way for 48fps to feel like 24fps - as you mentioned, there's lighting to adjust for and much more. I assume they'll get there eventually, but not yet maybe. 

[Fizzzzle]

I definitely remember the Hobbit movies being jarring because of the FPS. It's like you become acutely aware you're watching actors on a set.

[Guest]

I just read the IGN article, and I think they are misunderstanding what is happening. I think part of that is they linked to a tweet of a DP who also misunderstood something. What Cameron was talking about is mixing different FPS elements in the same scene. That isn’t new at all. Disney was doing that in animation from day one. What Cameron was talking about is that some individual elements, especially BG stuff was often rendered at 24 while the FG elements were rendered at 48, then all elements composited together.

 

But there definitely are moments in the 48fps version that switch to 24fps, most notable because the 24fps judder is there when it is completely missing for much of the film

[Guest]

Just now, Fizzzzle said:

I definitely remember the Hobbit movies being jarring because of the FPS. It's like you become acutely aware you're watching actors on a set.

It currently doesn’t work for true live action, IMO. Somebody will one day figure it out, but for now I think CG is a great place to play with higher FPS.

[Fizzzzle]

Into the Spider Verse had some of the most awesome artistic uses of fps I've ever seen. Different characters were animated at different frame rates within the same scene to reflect the animation style of whatever the character was based on. That shit was dope.

[Kal-El814]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It currently doesn’t work for true live action, IMO. Somebody will one day figure it out, but for now I think CG is a great place to play with higher FPS.

 

What do you mean by "doesn't work"? My understanding was always if you put someone who hasn't seen video content before in front of a 24 fps and HFR presentation, they might have a preference, but the notion that 24 fps is "filmic" is just conditioning.

[stepee]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I just read the IGN article, and I think they are misunderstanding what is happening. I think part of that is they linked to a tweet of a DP who also misunderstood something. What Cameron was talking about is mixing different FPS elements in the same scene. That isn’t new at all. Disney was doing that in animation from day one. What Cameron was talking about is that some individual elements, especially BG stuff was often rendered at 24 while the FG elements were rendered at 48, then all elements composited together.

 

But there definitely are moments in the 48fps version that switch to 24fps, most notable because the 24fps judder is there when it is completely missing for much of the film

 

It’s just like what video games do also, like rendering distant npcs at half frame rate etc.

 

I definitely want to see the 48fps version. I’m not a believer that 24fps is best for anything besides familiarly and working correctly with current film making process. The latter being a big deal of course, but I just mean that 24fps is not inherently better for live action, just people haven’t figured out exactly how to film higher frame rates yet.

 

My gen is lame about it so hopefully zoomers are more into it.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

What do you mean by "doesn't work"? My understanding was always if you put someone who hasn't seen video content before in front of a 24 fps and HFR presentation, they might have a preference, but the notion that 24 fps is "filmic" is just conditioning.

It requires a different set of filmmaking techniques that haven’t yet been developed. Literally everything from the lighting, to the movement of cameras, even the til/pan speed, is based around 24fps recording and playback. We need a new generation of filmmakers who can break out of the traditional ways of doing things to achieve a look that works properly for narrative content.

 

Thats actually why I think CG stuff already works so well, filmmakers have been breaking the “rules” in animation forever, so it doesn’t feel off to go with higher frame rates there.

 

I fully expect in the next decade to see much more HFR stuff make it to theaters and streaming.

[silentbob]

I want 3D impressions damnit! 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, silentbob said:

I want 3D impressions damnit! 

I saw about 20 minutes of the 4K/48fps/3D version back in September. It was easily the best 3D I’ve ever seen

[TheLeon]

I’m seeing it first thing after work tomorrow in Dolby 3D. Can’t wait! 

[silentbob]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I saw about 20 minutes of the 4K/48fps/3D version back in September. It was easily the best 3D I’ve ever seen

i remember those impressions and have been watering for a disc release since. Would you being playing this is standard or 48fps 3D at your theatre?

[Brick]

The problem with higher frame rates is that it gets rid of that natural blur or eyes create for fast moving objects, and therefore looks "off". 

 

This video explains it well and simple

 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Brick said:

The problem with higher frame rates is that it gets rid of that natural blur or eyes create for fast moving objects, and therefore looks "off". 

 

This video explains it well and simple

 

 

48 fps at 360 degree shutter has the same blur as 24 fps 180 degree shutter. Motion rendition itself is the bigger issue.

[stepee]

Can you just post process per-object motion blur in like games or something?

[best3444]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

I saw about 20 minutes of the 4K/48fps/3D version back in September. It was easily the best 3D I’ve ever seen

 

Now that has me wanting to actually leave the house and go to a theater for that. 

[SoberChef]

Going Saturday (hopefully, weather permitting) at 9:20a for an IMAX screening.

[Guest]

So I watched it start to finish tonight, earlier I was working on tuning audio so I wasn’t paying a ton of attention to it.

 

I’m genuinely baffled by Cameron not making this 48fps the entire time. It looks GREAT at 48, it also looks really nice at 24. But I think people are right that there are moments where it flip flops (or as my wife quoted the office “snip, snap, snip, snap”) from

shot to shot for no logical reason and can be disorienting, even though a lot of it has a more natural transition. It feels more like they ran out of time to render everything at 48.

 

So I would say see it in 24 (unless seeing it in 3D, then you really must see a 48fps presentation) the first time to simply enjoy the film. Then catch it in 48 just to see what could have been.

 

As for the movie, this is substantially better than the first film in almost every way. I do think it is literally an hour too long. You could drop the first hour after about the 10 minute mark and roll the second 2 hours and it would be fine. You could also just drop the middle hour and it would make next to no difference. Cameron needs an editor.

[Guest]

One other complaint: they really overuse that main theme in the score. Almost like the flick is mostly a temp track of music from the first film. Weird.

[best3444]

I might make an effort this weekend to see it...alone. I completely forget the story for the first one but the technology and 3-D have me extremely intrigued. 

[TwinIon]

Saw it last night in Dolby Cinema 3D and visually it is quite amazing. I really have to agree with @sblfilms that it's puzzling why the whole thing isn't in 48fps. It looks amazing in the high frame rate, and the constant switching brings it down. I don't mind the 24fps sequences on their own, but there are times when sequence A is in 48, sequence B is in 24, and they're cutting between the two. Or even worse, a sequence starts jumps back and forth without cutting to another. I have to wonder if Cameron just looked at every shot and decided on a case by case basis which he liked better, or if they really did just run out of time to render everything or what.

 

I also could have sworn that the colors looked different in 48, like the saturation had been turned up half a notch, though I can't imagine why that would be the case. Maybe it was just that my eyes recognized something was different and had a hard time placing it.

 

I really think that there's little reason for this film not to be in 48 all the time. Even though I enjoyed the HFR Hobbit and Gemini Man, I absolutely see why people might not. It can very much look like you're looking through a window into a film set, but with Avatar there are almost no sets! Instead you're just looking through a window into Pandora, and whatever combination of factors contributes to that tv-sitcom vibe people get from HFR do not seem to exist with this movie.

 

Aside from the oddity of the switching frame rates, the film is gorgeous throughout.

[CitizenVectron]

I still haven't seen the first film!

[stepee]

finally a movie where we can complain about frame rate problems @Mr.Vic20 and I are so in!

[Guest]

My anecdotes line up with what I’m hearing from others: this is a little soft demand wise. The only folks I’m talking to seeing packed auditoriums are premium auditoriums in big cities. Looking like 130m for the weekend at this point. I do think WOM will be solid, so I expect some solid legs

[johnny]

was gonna see this this weekend but i got covid again