Avatar Fire and Ash 3D (2025) in cinemas December 2025

[BLMN]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

That makes at least four of us! A wave of HFR films failed to materialise over a decade ago after the Hobbit foisted HFR's vulgar banalisation of film on us. And I've been delighted and relieved to see that, so far, it's failed to materialise again after Cameron delivered an even worse version of it.

(I know, some people love HFR, and that's great. But some of us hate it. And I could say this until I'm as blue in the face as a Na'vi and some people still wouldn't believe me - but it's not because we're "Just not used to it"!)

You should add an IMO there bud, that is definitely not a fact.

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by BLMN

You should add an IMO there bud, that is definitely not a fact.

Fair point, that was my opinion. But it wasn't just my opinion:

Originally Posted by mpls1981

It would have been better if it was HFR for the entire thing. It was jarring to have it keep switching back and forth - especially when it did it within the same scenes.

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

I too would have preferred HFR for the whole film

Are you actually glad the entire film wasn't HFR? Do you think The Hobbit and Gemini Man would have been better if they had mixed standard and high frame rates?

This is anecdotal, of course, but Way of Water's VFR seems to have displeased a lot of people on both sides of the fence: Many of those who like HFR would have preferred to see the whole film that way, and those who hate it, well, they obviously hated it.

Cameron used his high frame rate the same way Michael Bay used different aspect ratios in some of those Transformers films: Scattered here and there in the same scene. VAR can work when used well (and I'm saying that as someone who's not a fan of it) and, who knows, maybe VFR can work better also. (Yes, a handful of people, Cameron probably included, might say that his use of it was a triumph.) The word "Jarring" has been an incredibly popular way to describe his use of it. I will definitely be interested to see if he modifies his implementation of it in Fire and Ash.

The above is why, in my opinion, Cameron's VFR was even worse* than The Hobbit's HFR. (And, for a pleasant change, my opinion seems to be a popular one.)

*EDIT: Of course, for "Even worse" you could read, "Not quite as good." But, again, do you think the tiny handful of other HFR films would have looked even better if lots of shots had been at 24fps..?

[mpls1981]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

Fair point, that was my opinion. But it wasn't just my opinion:





Are you actually glad the entire film wasn't HFR? Do you think The Hobbit and Gemini Man would have been better if they had mixed standard and high frame rates?

This is anecdotal, of course, but Way of Water's VFR seems to have displeased a lot of people on both sides of the fence: Many of those who like HFR would have preferred to see the whole film that way, and those who hate it, well, they obviously hated it.

Cameron used his high frame rate the same way Michael Bay used different aspect ratios in some of those Transformers films: Scattered here and there in the same scene. VAR can work when used well (and I'm saying that as someone who's not a fan of it) and, who knows, maybe VFR can work better also. (Yes, a handful of people, Cameron probably included, might say that his use of it was a triumph.) The word "Jarring" has been an incredibly popular way to describe his use of it. I will definitely be interested to see if he modifies his implementation of it in Fire and Ash.

The above is why, in my opinion, Cameron's VFR was even worse* than The Hobbit's HFR. (And, for a pleasant change, my opinion seems to be a popular one.)

*EDIT: Of course, for "Even worse" you could read, "Not quite as good." But, again, do you think the tiny handful of other HFR films would have looked even better if lots of shots had been at 24fps..?

I think it would have been better utilized if it were the entire film instead of switching back and forth like he did. Those underwater scenes looked amazing but due to the constant changing I ended up not really enjoying the film the first time I watched it. I'm hoping that he listened to what people complained about with his usage of HFR and makes changes for the next one (Or at least theaters offer non-HFR 3D versions in the premium theaters).

I've yet to watch a movie with HFR and thought it was done well. Going into Avatar I had hoped that his way of utilizing it would work better given how much effort he puts into the technology he utilizes in his films.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

Fair point, that was my opinion. But it wasn't just my opinion:





Are you actually glad the entire film wasn't HFR? Do you think The Hobbit and Gemini Man would have been better if they had mixed standard and high frame rates?

This is anecdotal, of course, but Way of Water's VFR seems to have displeased a lot of people on both sides of the fence: Many of those who like HFR would have preferred to see the whole film that way, and those who hate it, well, they obviously hated it.

Cameron used his high frame rate the same way Michael Bay used different aspect ratios in some of those Transformers films: Scattered here and there in the same scene. VAR can work when used well (and I'm saying that as someone who's not a fan of it) and, who knows, maybe VFR can work better also. (Yes, a handful of people, Cameron probably included, might say that his use of it was a triumph.) The word "Jarring" has been an incredibly popular way to describe his use of it. I will definitely be interested to see if he modifies his implementation of it in Fire and Ash.

The above is why, in my opinion, Cameron's VFR was even worse* than The Hobbit's HFR. (And, for a pleasant change, my opinion seems to be a popular one.)

*EDIT: Of course, for "Even worse" you could read, "Not quite as good." But, again, do you think the tiny handful of other HFR films would have looked even better if lots of shots had been at 24fps..?

I'd be interested in seeing a film where high-motion parts of a scene move at HFR while low-motion parts can stay at 24 FPS. This has a certain visual look when done in old films, but I am curious to see what the effect would be when the lowest effective framerate is 24 FPS.

The modern trend of 3D films only having select few strinf 3D "money shots" and minor 3D outside of them is something I'm not keen on so I could apply that same position to HFR. Then again, I thought Cameron was trying to go for a HFR ramp up that the viewer wouldn't notice, which ain't analogous to strong 3D.

As an aside, I was hanging with some family and the contractor friends they hired to make sone renovations. The new LED lights have some bulbs that have varying degree of flicker, and none of them noticed it. I pointed out the telltale signs, like how moving objects appear to have motion trails, or how if you flick a water drop then the drop will appear to be motionless in the flicker. They still barely notice it and think I'm nit-picking, but to me the flicker stands out as it causes eyestrain. Perhaps that gives me a taste of why you have such distaste for HFR?

Anecdotes aren't data, so the saying goes, but I'm going to file this as another example in my theory that the average moviegoer, like the average TV buyer, doesn't notice HFR until he's called a rube by the critics for not having noticed it.


Lastly, a fringe benefit occurs to me: HFR inspires better CGI. Digital VFX that look approximately passable at 24 FPS look horribly hokey at HFR, even when just doubling the playback speed (and pitch correcting audio)

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

I'd be interested in seeing a film where high-motion parts of a scene move at HFR while low-motion parts can stay at 24 FPS. This has a certain visual look when done in old films, but I am curious to see what the effect would be when the lowest effective framerate is 24 FPS.

Agree, I’d be extremely interested to see Cameron, or anyone, have a go at using different frame rates within the same shot. Shall we start calling that MFR, Mixed Frame Rate?

When he first announced his VFR a few years ago I naively thought that the “Variable” element of that was going to cover a multitude of different frame rates rather than what he delivered, which was just two. Strictly speaking, I suppose that does make it variable – by only by the bare minimum count!

You could be absolutely right in that it might be down to how individuals perceive motion that makes some people so appalled by HFR. (Maybe worth noting that I’m one of those people who cannot watch single-chip DLPs because of the constant Rainbow Effect swamping the image: It can be a
struggle to understand how others don’t see RBE – to me it’s so obvious!)

Personally, I lean towards thinking that I hate HFR so much primarily because it looks so ordinary: It strips film of its “magic.” Watching an actor deliver a performance ‘like you’re there on the set’ makes the whole enterprise look ridiculous. That’s just my opinion, of course: Some people don’t even notice this massive clanging clash between art & tech.