It seems this sequel has been delayed so long because James Cameron was developing new technology for mocap underwater. By the way, what exactly is known about the technology of Avatar 2? Anyway, do you think this film will change movies the way Star Wars did a long time ago?
The first one could have changed a lot abut filmmaking… if it had been followed up by sequels in a reasonable time frame. As it is, though, it’s going to have an uphill climb.
Isn’t that The Legend of Korra?
It might change whether or not people pay to see any of James Cameron’s movies again… I know I’m not all fired up to see a sequel, and certainly not four.
I think it will change film making the way Avatar did.
It’ll change the amount of money investors will dedicate to future James Cameron Vanity Projects, that is for certain.
Not at all, then?
Maybe every film for the next two years will make a ham-handed attempt to jam underwater mocapping in there like what happened with 3D.
Exactly.
Look at all the big-budget 3-D films that have been made since Avatar. They totally transformed the movie industry, and no one can have a discussion about film in 2019 without talking about James Cameron and his groundbreaking work. There have been copies, derivative works, and even musicals, and every single director coming out of film school in the last five years has been talking about nothing except immersive 3-D.
I don’t get this argument. Why would sequels be necessary for the film to have influence? There were people at the time who argued that Avatar, all by itself, was a transformational moment in the history of cinema. If that was true, we’ve certainly seen very little evidence of it in the actual world of movies that people watch. I’m not sure what would be different if Cameron had managed to squeeze out a sequel in the last couple of years.
Or a downhill swim, apparently.
It probably would have have been better and more interesting to make movies based on Titanics’ sister ships.
When Avatar came out, there were a lot of movies out there that were using 3D poorly, and very few that were using it well, and of those few that were using it well, none were “live action” (in quotes because Avatar wasn’t live action, either, but it was presented as such). Then Cameron came out with this movie that did a superb job of using 3D. That could have been the biggest thing since color came to the movies, and become standard for all flicks, of all genres, just as color did… but it takes more than one movie to start a trend. Instead, Avatar was followed by a bunch more movies that used 3D poorly, and so it remains a gimmick today, and only used at all in a very limited set of genres.
Of course, it didn’t help matters either when Cameron went back and re-did his previous biggest success, a movie in a completely different genre, in 3D… and did it poorly.
I’m not sure that I agree with this.
The advantage of color is immediately obvious, especially in comparison with black and white. It didn’t take one movie, or a few particularly good movies, to make the advantages of color clear to everyone within the movie industry and in the viewing audience. I don’t think you can say the same about 3-D technology.
I understand that, in some particular ways, 3-D renders the scenes in a manner that more accurately reflects our own experience of the world; after all, wel see in three dimensions. The problem is that, in my opinion at least, 3-D doesn’t really enhance the moviegoing experience in quite the same way that color does. I thought that Avatar was fun to watch, and I enjoyed the immersive 3-D experience, but I don’t really need it for a movie to fulfill all the major requirements of storytelling that I’m seeking. There are certainly types of movies that might benefit significantly from the technology, but I can also think of plenty of movies that would not be improved in any tangible way at all.
Also, even a regular 2-D movie can, with the right cinematography techniques, convey the impressions of depth and perspective that three-dimensional sightr provides for us. Look at some of the most successful cinematographers, and you can see how, with their choice of camera placement and the director’s choice of how the actors and the elements move around the scene, they are still able to give us a sense of a three-dimensional world on the two-dimensional space of a movie screen. I think of some of the landscapes in movies like The Revenant, for example, and I have trouble conceptualizing how 3-D would have improved the visual experience.
I understand that this is a somewhat subjective assessment, and who knows, maybe if they had filmed The Revenant using Cameron’s technique, maybe it would be even more immersive and confronting. I’m just not that convinced, however, that it’s really a great benefit for the vast majority of movies.
It’s easy to say that now, but then, one could have said the same of color, back before it became standard. Very few movies actually need color to tell the story they’re telling, and in the days of black and white film, skilled cinematography could give the impression of color. And yet, hardly anyone films in black and white any more, and when they do, it’s a gimmick (and often an unsuccessful one).
The fact that it’s still possible to say that is, at least, proof that Avatar didn’t transform the movie world in that way (though it still leaves open the question of whether it could).
I completely disagree with just about everything in these sentences. Still, this is a rather subjective set of measures, so I doubt I’m going to convince you, and vice versa.
Could you elaborate on this? How did they do it?
Silent movies often had tinting and toning to enhance certain moods in black & white films, which had nothing to do with cinematography and everything to do with post-production.
But no, you could never use B&W photography to convey the concept of “red”. In the story, you might say something is red (like Bette Davis’s dress in JEZEBEL) and then use a very harsh black to contrast that dress with all the others in the room, but that had less to do with the photography than with planting the concept of “red” in the audience’s mind through exposition.
Fundamentally, comparing 3D to color or even stereo is misguided because for all its sensational origins, filmmakers still found artistic potential in color to enhance story, character, symbolism, mood, etc. Not every film in color does this, but the examples of when they have are legion. Similarly, stereo was often used to blow people away, but now sound designs are very sophisticated and (in the proper setting and technical configuration) can be used in subtle ways to increase an enhanced immersive feeling, which can be used to heighten a wealth of emotions.
But 3D has never gone beyond its gimmicky origins from the 50s (and even earlier optical experiments). I’ve only seen one film to ever use 3D in an artistic way–meaning that it enhanced the theme and storytelling of the film and not just the spectacle aspect. That film was the wonderful CORALINE which used 3D in a muted way in the “real world” and an exaggerated 3D effect in the “alternate world”. This added significantly to the tensions and the mood of the story, and not just the gee-whiz factor.
AVATAR was all gee-whiz. I thought its use of the technology was overrated and did nothing to make a mediocre story better. It was impressive in certain shots, but never more than that. Some films use it to try to enhance immediacy or disorientation and those are OK, but with 3D, you’re in for a penny/you’re in for a pound, so if you commit to 3D, you either find an intelligent or meaningful way to fold in that technology throughout the film, or you’re just being self-indulgent (and with the price points. also a bit mercenary).
This is exceptionally rare and very atypical in its deployment. There have been a few Werner Herzog docs that have used it to enhance the beauty of a location, but those films are full of rigor and self-discipline and allow the visuals to speak for themselves rather than letting them be defined by their dimensionality, so to speak. And I’m sorry I never saw INTO THE SPIDERVERSE in 3D because that was such a unique tapestry of design and action effects, that it made me think it might look amazing in 3D. But I doubt the story (which I liked a lot) would have changed any with the effect. So even used in a good film effectively, it’s still most likely to be just bells & whistles.
I agree 100% that 3D remains a gimmick. I’m just saying that there’s a possible alternate history where it didn’t.
Though I will say that the new Tron movie at least tried to use 3D artistically, the same way that color was used in The Wizard of Oz. It didn’t work, but I think that was more because the movie was just bad than due to any inherent limitations of 3D.
Pretty much this. Except I never even saw the entire first one. I can recognize a movie that’s all gimmick without having to sit all the way through it.