B5Erik

Actually, I'm not crapping on Avatar at all. I'm just mocking the idea that a dozen years later people are still excited about a sequel. Very few people care.

I actually like Avatar. It's a good movie with great visuals.

But the excitement went away about a decade ago. People moved on.

Jay G.

It's actually the opposite, it tends to make things look more like reality as the motion gets smoother and approaches reality (which has infinite framerate). This is why sports and news have been shot at 60hz for forever. It's also why video games aim for ever higher framerates, especially for VR applications, as we expect reality to have extremely smooth motion.

Unfortunately, for fictional works, making the image look closer to reality can mean "they look like they're on a movie set" instead of "they look like they're in a real castle". Something about the way 24fps blurs reality and motion makes us accept things as real; whether this is an inherent human reaction to lower framerates, or just a learned response from watching so much 24fps material, creating a feedback loop of 24fps looking more "movie like" because movies are shot on 24fps, because 24fps looks movie-like, because movies are shot on 24fps, etc., is more difficult to say.

Like, there's tons of content on Youtube shot at 60fps. Most video shot on smartphones is going to be 60fps, unless you're deliberately setting a different framerate or maxing the resolution and the phone can't support 60fps at 4K, for example.

Why So Blu?

It's gonna be awesome. In that blurb that says it's going be re-released in theaters in September with remastered video/sound, I suspect that's going to be the Dolby Cinema version. Basically the 4K/Atmos re-release. If it's the extended cut that I have on Blu-ray with the Earth prologue then I will see it in theaters again. That's my favorite version of the film and I just watched it a few weeks ago and it still looked/sounded great upscaled in 4K.

TomOpus

The movie Gemini Man was 60fps. Also The Hobbit.

I thought I spotted somewhere in an article posted in this thread that this was filmed at 48 fps (could be wrong, sometimes I read this thread late at night/early in the morning). Maybe it's a compromise to not look so soap opera-ish.

Artman

Definitely in for this and the re-release of the first. IMAX 3D maybe? (Dr Strange is playing in this formal for one showtime a day)

Can't wait for deep sea exploring, Cameron's specialty. Bet we're in for some cool creatures down there!

GoldenJCJ

Oh man, cue Marvel dusting off Endgame for a theatrical re-release…

GoldenJCJ

Two things that look fantastic in 3D are flying scenes and underwater scenes. If nothing else, this should have some amazing 3D shots.

Jay G.

Nope, Gemini Man was shot at 120fps, although not every theater could show that framerate, and the UHD Blu-ray spec only goes up to 60fps, so on disc that's the max. Ang Lee's previous film Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk was shot the same way.

The Hobbit was shot at 48fps, but at the same shutter speed as 24fps, as a compromise to allow easy conversion back to 24fps, because otherwise you have to add in motion blur when reducing framerate so it doesn't look weird.

Cameron has said he's used HFR "sparingly" in the Avatar sequels, for scenes that merit it.
https://collider.com/avatar-sequels-...james-cameron/

Alan Smithee

Well, a good way to re-introduce home 3D (besides having content people want to see) would be to add high frame rate capability. The Hobbit movies and Gemini Man are among the only 3D Blu-Ray titles I don't have because they're in the wrong frame rate. Will probably see the new Avatar in a theater too in case it can't be seen properly at home. (Saw Gemini Man at the theater for that reason, but presentation was not great.)

Draven

I don’t even know where I’d go to see a 3D movie around here. I think the last one I saw in theaters was The Avengers (and that was only because it was the only one I could get a ticket for for a second viewing on opening weekend).

I can’t imagine I’d bother with seeing it in 3D.

Why So Blu?

AMC will have it in Dolby Cinema 3-D just like it did Alita a couple of years ago.

Koby

deleted

Rob V

I wonder if this will rejuvenate the desire for 3D home hardware? I've been down that road and don't care in the least... but movies like this might push the narrative again.

GoldenJCJ

While I can’t say I’m very excited for an Avatar sequel, one must only look at the Top Gun: Maverick thread to prove your point.

Draven

I certainly hope not. What a waste of time that was - until the TV can support it without glasses and at any angle, it's a non-starter for 99% of homes.

Mike86

True. I think one thing that makes it stand out in this instance though is that Cameron isn’t just doing one sequel. He has multiple in the pipeline and we don’t even know if the first sequel will catch on like the original film did or not.

Also it sort of feels like in general circles Avatar has been talked about less over the years so I question how popular it still is in spite of how well it originally did.

E Unit

Well this movie is what sparked the 3D resurgence, complete with TV companies putting it in the tech. Since we’re about to get hit with 5 years or so with 3D Avatar movies, expect TV models probably in 2023 to start adding 3D back into them.

I forgot where I read about it, but there was speculation the reason why 3D was dropped from TV’s in that it wasn’t a fully developed thing. Knowing that Avatar movies would be coming in the future, they are still working to create a much better 3D experience, and to reincorporate them in the future models. Not sure if I fully believe that one.

B5Erik

Independence Day says, "Hello."

Exactly.

Dan

Yep, this is right. I saw Gemini Man opening weekend at the only cinema in Houston that was showing it at 120fps. The caveat is... and I may be wrong but I believe I'm getting this right... it was 120fps passive 3D, so each eye was still getting 60fps. Therefore the 60fps 4K disc, which has no 3D, is still kind of what us unlucky souls saw when we sat through this dreck at the cinema.

I am still holding out hope for a movie shot at 120fps 2D, and projected at 120fps 2D. This is what I want before I make sweeping arguments against HFR. Because... I want to believe.


And it ended up making the 48fps version look weird because of it. Such a shame. They would have been better off using the correct shutter speed for 48fps, then adding the motion blur to the 24fps product. Extra work? yes. More expensive to render? Certainly. But the way it was done ultimately knee-capped the 48fps version. The only time it looked mostly ok was in wider shots and the big action sequences.

This is interesting and confusing. Is he saying that the projectors will be setup for what is essentially the cinema equivalent of VRR? Meaning, project some scenes at 24fps, then ramp the framerate up to 60fps or 120fps for the big action scenes? Or still project those HFR scenes at 24fps because they'll 'look better' than if they were filmed at 24fps?
Maybe I need to re-read it to see what he's getting at... but I'm very curious how this is expected to play out in the real world on real projectors. I haven't yet read the piece on what Christie is doing in support of this, so maybe the answer is there.

Brian T

As a lifelong fan of 3D, I still buy nearly every release – domestic and imported – and am beyond grateful to the 3D Film Archive for their substantial work reviving vintage titles in better quality 3D than they ever had originally. Sure, I'm part of a minority by now, but that's the great thing about this part of the home video era. There's still something for everyone, and 3D isn't really dead yet; it's just found the niche it was always destined to have. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it added back into televisions to cash in on Avatar, at least for a while. No way that won't happen. Will it catch on even as much as it did in the mid-00's? I doubt it, but who cares? Those who want to watch AVATAR 2 flat will have every opportunity to do so, probably more. As with the earlier 3D sets, a lot of people will inevitably buy new models that coincidentally have it, but they'll never use it. Maybe they just want 4K, or see a good sale price, or whatever. I have two 3D models – my original 55" LG, and more recently an 'inherited' 60" Samsung – no way was I casting that off on Kijiji!

As for the earlier 3D not being fully-developed as a reason it was dropped from sets, you'd never know it by me. Can't say I've ever seen a 3D presentation that was truly bad or "undeveloped", even early weird-o diorama-fests like CLASH OF THE TITANS. While the vast majority – especially conversions – were and still are mostly about depth into the screen, some of the pop-outs on the vintage features (THE BUBBLE, DYNASTY, SHOGUN WOMEN and others) are just jaw-dropping even if the films themselves aren't exactly classics.

With AVATAR 2, I think the fact that discussion (and even marketing) of the franchise has faded to almost nothing over the years is a good thing. The social media landscape was much different in 2009 and the first film made a shit-ton of money regardless of it. I think the new film will have no trouble generating major buzz starting next week; even if it might not rake in the box office revenues of its predecessor, I doubt it will be a complete flop, even on 3D screens.

3D as a home viewing experience – either via screens that admittedly are no longer in production or via physical media that is still being produced – has been with us now for, what, about sixteen years? I'd hardly call that a waste of time. I really don't think glasses-free 3D is a thing everybody's waiting for to jump back in. Mind you, if it turns out to be a thing that actually works I'll certainly give it a shot, preferably with a 'glasses-on' option built into the same sets, or at least the ability to watch existing 3D blu-rays in the new format. I was about to write that it had been an awfully long time since glasses-free screens were spoken of, but a quick google search reveals that they're very much still in development, in part with an eye toward the 3D NFT and digital signage markets. Never thought about those angles, since I consider NFTs to be kind of ridiculous in spite of their growing popularity, but I could see both generating interest alongside theatrical or home viewing.

E Unit

Some CinemaCon news via Bill Hunt/thedigitalbits - “Landau additionally announced plans to re-release the original Avatar on Sept. 23 in theaters, with restored picture and sound.” I think we’ll see a physical #4K #UltraHD release of the original #AVATAR in Q4 too, ahead of the sequel’s 12/16 theatrical debut. Either that, or both films will arrive on 4K UHD together in early 2023.”

Why So Blu?

Post #567 confirmed that.

d2cheer

And you wonder why you take shit on this board...



Based on??? This forum?

​​​​​​​

story

I glanced at the thread title and between "Way of the Water" and "Saldana" my brain did "Avatar: Day of the Soldado." Is Denis Villeneuve directing?

B5Erik

This forum, the other 3 forums I post on that talk movies, friends, family members, aquaintances...

I know of no one who is genuinely excited about this movie. The first one gets shit on all the time and has not maintained a good reputation.

I like the first one, but greenlighting 3 super expensive sequels more than a decade removed from the original was a huge risk, bordering on foolish.