Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by Benoit Blanc

Enough of this shit. This thread's been derailed enough by this argument. I'm starting up a thread specifically for this subject.

That's just your subjective opinion.

JOKE!!!
We need to go back to talking about the Avatar sequels. Hopefully, Cameron wows everyone, again. Write off Cameron at your peril.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

For this task, luck is unnecessary. It has that in common with your post

Yeah.

[mjvmovieman]

Any super early predictions on domestic and worldwide box office for 'Avatar: The Way of Water'?

I'm thinking $600m/$1.9b worldwide.

But the optimist in me says $1bil domestic/$3bil worldwide. I know the first billion dollar domestic grosser seems crazy, but some movie has to do it at some point.

It will largely depend on what's going on with the pandemic come December, and whether or not China gets a super wide release.

[avs commenter]

I need a trailer before I make a box office prediction

[levcore]

This will be amazing, of that i am certain.

[Krynoid-Man]

Originally Posted by kylor

Just announced at CinemaCon, Avatar: The Way of Water only in theaters December 16, 2022

https://twitter.com/20thcentury/stat...els%3Fpage%3D1

The title reminds me of this

Bruce Lee Be As Water My Friend - YouTube

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Poya

I get it's literally inconsequential but because of its lengthy development cycle, the cameras used for these films have already been outdated. The first sequel is using the Sony CineAlta VENICE. From what I've gathered, the Venice 2 has been released. Not to mention the other cameras with arguably as good if not better specs than even that one.

Obviously, Cameron can't just reshoot the damn things with these new cameras but that's the problem with digital cinematography. The cameras always get outdated. Celluloid has the ability to last for a long time and still look amazing but these cameras have to keep updating color science, dynamic range, resolution, frame rate, etc. Heck, the movies shot on the Alexa a decade ago now look like something you could shoot on your phone.

What a shitpost this is.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

What a shitpost this is.

A long post with not one iota of evidence to back up his claims.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

A long post with not one iota of evidence to back up his claims.

There is no evidence. That's the issue.

Sure, digital cameras lack in top-end resolution compared to what film can do, overall. But even then, unless you're shooting on IMAX, the majority of current digital cameras can match film and even exceed it in resolution -- which the Sony Venice has plenty of.

The Sony Venice 2 packs an 8.6K sensor, but only a max of 30fps.

The camera used on the Avatar sequels were specially calibrated and customized for Cameron's production process. It'll have high-resolutions, HFR (High Frame Rate), and 3D implementation. I don't know the exact resolution these films are being shot at, but I'm willing to bet it's in excess of 4K.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

There is no evidence. That's the issue.

Sure, digital cameras lack in top-end resolution compared to what film can do, overall. But even then, unless you're shooting on IMAX, the majority of current digital cameras can match film and even exceed it in resolution -- which the Sony Venice has plenty of.

The Sony Venice 2 packs an 8.6K sensor, but only a max of 30fps.

The camera used on the Avatar sequels were specially calibrated and customized for Cameron's production process. It'll have high-resolutions, HFR (High Frame Rate), and 3D implementation. I don't know the exact resolution these films are being shot at, but I'm willing to bet it's in excess of 4K.

I'm pretty sure if he was making them now, he'd use the new Red V-Raptor, which can do 8K at 120fps but it's Red so the color science will still be crap. I don't even care much for that much resolution if we're still not fully in the 4K pool yet. The Alexa LF can do HFR and still has the best color science out of them all, close to film, even. That said, I do wish he'd stop focusing on 3D and HFR when audiences have soundly rejected them for the past decade.

[Ben_C]

I really enjoyed Avatar when I saw it at the IMAX way back in ‘09 (it remains the best 3D experience I’ve ever had, every subsequent 3D film I saw just paled in comparison), and whilst I still much prefer Terminator 1&2 and Aliens, Avatar still gets a regular rewatch, and it still both looks amazing, and is just an enjoyable blockbuster.

The sequel feels like it’s been a lifetime in the making, but I’m really looking forward to seeing the teaser, then trailer/s, and then the film itself. Much like the first film, they’ll be people who’ll try to convince us it’s terrible, but them and their opinions don’t interest me at all.

[HillSprinter]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

Exactly. You can have a SUBJECTIVE opinion that the vast majority of people share. For example, Lawrence of Arabia.

But it is still a subjective opinion. Art is subjective.

Metal is objectively stronger than plastic (someone bring up mercury). That is the correct use of the term OBJECTIVE. Some people need a dictionary.

Um, I think you’ll find mercury has next to no tensile strength.

[HillSprinter]

Originally Posted by Poya

I'm pretty sure if he was making them now, he'd use the new Red V-Raptor, which can do 8K at 120fps but it's Red so the color science will still be crap. I don't even care much for that much resolution if we're still not fully in the 4K pool yet. The Alexa LF can do HFR and still has the best color science out of them all, close to film, even. That said, I do wish he'd stop focusing on 3D and HFR when audiences have soundly rejected them for the past decade.

Audiences love the fast & furious films. Audiences know nothing.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Poya

I'm pretty sure if he was making them now, he'd use the new Red V-Raptor, which can do 8K at 120fps but it's Red so the color science will still be crap. I don't even care much for that much resolution if we're still not fully in the 4K pool yet. The Alexa LF can do HFR and still has the best color science out of them all, close to film, even. That said, I do wish he'd stop focusing on 3D and HFR when audiences have soundly rejected them for the past decade.

What's your science to prove that the Alexa LF has the so called "best color science"?

There's plenty of testimony from DOPs that have used the Venice that the color science is every bit as good as anything Arri has to offer -- and the reason why they opt to shoot on the former is due to the larger sensor size. So this argument of yours that camera tech has already surpassed what Cameron opted to shoot the second and third Avatar sequels on is a bit of a fallacy.

One of the reasons Cameron personally chose the Venice -- and even collaborated with Sony directly with -- is because of its color science.

As for RED and its color science, while not perfect, even they've come a long way from their Dragon/One days. They also have DSMC3 and as you mentioned, higher resolution and frame-rates to offer.

Which is also why I'm not really sure what you're upset about... other than IMAX film, it's not like shooting on 35MM is going to offer some substantial difference, if anything at all, over the Sony Venice in terms of resolution.

You also have to factor in the lenses used, and the science behind the sensors of each camera. Which, in the case of the Venice, by all metrics, appears to offer a razor-sharp, damn near noiseless image; Which is what Cameron is after in the first place.

[Neverman]

i'm so excited for the avatar sequels. i'm a huge fan of everything 3D and HFR (4K, HDR also super important) and i just want to know how cameron applies it in his own style. VFR hasn't been done before. it could look like the hobbit or gemini man or it could have a very different feel to it. also i'm just a fan of his movies and i like his crazy big ambitions. gonna watch the teaser and the avatar rerelease in imax 3d and then in december i'll try to catch several screening formats like dolby cinema, led cinema, imax 3d and so on (if i like what i see).

for me, creators intent really matters. if a director wants to shoot in 3d, i welcome it. if he wants to shoot 35mm or 70mm, i welcome it. if he wants to do hfr, black and white or 4:3, i welcome it. i trust directors to know what kind of style their movies need and i'm openminded enough to not flat-out reject anything. in regards to whether avatar is an objectively good or bad movie, i only want to say this: cameron was very outspoken about the influences and intentions of the story. so he did it deliberately. i don't have to like those creative choices in order to accept them. i respect the craft and i support directors that make bold choices. and i don't see how his writing style has changed. he still writes the corny oneliners and tough-guy-talking, very hamfisted, very blunt. i like it because i know people who talk that way and it reminds me of my blue-collar upbringing in an environment where people are usually pretty rough and have a no-bullshit attitude.
so is that bad moviemaking/scriptwriting per se? i don't think so. cameron always had a strong b-movie influence in his movies, it's pulp with a high budget. but cameron is also good in manipulating his audience and creating really intense moments in his movies and that's what made me fall in love with him as a director. you can draw a lot of comparisons between his earlier movies and avatar, be it thematically, visually, narratively and structurally. the only thing where he constantly evolves is his production design fetish where he gets bigger and more obsessive with every movie. i first realized that watching aliens. those set-designs are so awesome, you can really feel how much work they put into creating wnvironments that feel real and lived-in. so for me, cameron hasn't gone downhill since true lies and i don't think the insane commercial success he had with titanic and avatar are an indicator for that. i'm not sure if i'll like the avatar sequels. i didn't like avatar at first either, probably because i had unreasonably high expectations (or, honestly didn't really know what to make out of it).
but now i'm excited for it and i can't wait to see where cameron's obsessions take us next.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by HillSprinter

Audiences love the fast & furious films. Audiences know nothing.

They love to laugh at them.

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

What's your science to prove that the Alexa LF has the so called "best color science"?

There's plenty of testimony from DOPs that have used the Venice that the color science is every bit as good as anything Arri has to offer -- and the reason why they opt to shoot on the former is due to the larger sensor size. So this argument of yours that camera tech has already surpassed what Cameron opted to shoot the second and third Avatar sequels on is a bit of a fallacy.

One of the reasons Cameron personally chose the Venice -- and even collaborated with Sony directly with -- is because of its color science.

This had me worried:

Originally Posted by Paul Cameron

"We were very happy in the past shooting film, and still to this day, on 500 ISO, ASA, is basically the highest stock we have in motion pictures,” said Cameron. "You can push it up stop, maybe it's 640 or 800, but it's a little muddy into the thousands. Suddenly, you've got a system that performs almost identically at 2500 ISO. And there's only a very slight loss of some color saturation that you're easily able to push back in later. There's very little signal to noise there.”

I mean... as one person noted below, isn't that not good?

Look, the camera itself isn't gonna get you an automatically good image. Not even the lens can do that alone. The point is that you want a camera that can give you the most potential to play around with, extend the crayon box, if you please. You can't expect any of them to be perfect but you want the one that gets you the results that please you the most. Just because it's James Cameron, doesn't mean I can't suggest other better options.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Poya

This had me worried:

Why would that worry you? It reads as general unanimous praise for what the Venice can do.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Poya

They love to laugh at them.



This had me worried:



I mean... as one person noted below, isn't that not good?

Look, the camera itself isn't gonna get you an automatically good image. Not even the lens can do that alone. The point is that you want a camera that can give you the most potential to play around with, extend the crayon box, if you please. You can't expect any of them to be perfect but you want the one that gets you the results that please you the most. Just because it's James Cameron, doesn't mean I can't suggest other better options.

You make it sound like the Venice is a ****ing camcorder. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. What Paul Cameron is saying is somewhat garbled in the bolded but basically he's trying to say that the camera has very low (or at least equivalent to film at 500 ASA) noise when shooting at 2500 ISO. Considering that most people shot the older Alexas at 800 ISO it's a hell of a thing that they can get another stop and a half of light sensitivity out of the Venice with no noise penalty. And considering that it's a 6K VistaVision sized sensor vs the Super 35 size of the old Alexas it's even more impressive.

Besides, Cameron takes so long to make these things that the camera tech will ALWAYS be evolving in the background as he does so. But once he's happy with x system then he's happy, he shot the first Avatar on 1080p Sony F950s for goodness' sake. And UNLIKE those cameras the Venice will bake in plenty of extra goodness, not that it matters so much when a massive amount of the movie is going to be computer generated anyway, whereby they can dial in whatever colour and range that they want.

[Poya]

...look, I found some comparison videos from a variety of sources. They're YouTube so take with a grain of salt but should give you an idea on the differing sciences. You be the judge.

Sony Venice | Arri Alexa Mini LF - side by side - YouTube

Full frame Camera Comparison - YouTube

ARRI MINI LF VS SONY VENICE - YouTube

Alexa LF - Sony VENICE - Red Helium 8K Test Shoot in 4K HDR - YouTube

Arri Alexa LF // RED Monstro // Sony Venice: Сравнение лучших кинокамер на 2020 - YouTube

[TheSweetieMan]

I'm not watching any of those.

I've seen enough great content shot on the Venice ('DEVS', 'Dopesick', 'Cursed', 'Kate', etc) that shows off its resolution, color science, and HDR capabilities.

I'm not sure what the point of your posts are. Your original complaint started off about film and digital, and some weird reasons why Cameron is already behind the curve on camera tech, but he's really not. It's just awkward because it's all... wrong.

I mean, Geoff is right that because of the time Cameron takes to plan out, shoot, and complete his films -- it is SUBSTANTIALLY longer than any other blockbuster filmmaker alive right now -- but it's done with the understanding of utilizing the best tools he can currently use at his disposal.

Not to mention, we've seen with plenty of UHD Blus that resolution doesn't define detail, picture depth, and above all else, QUALITY.

Films like 'Cloverfield' and 'Predators', which are shot at sub-1080p from start to end, had no business looking as good as they did upscaled to 4K, but they were done impressively so.

There are so many tools that can be used to make footage appear better and more detailed than the original resolution it was captured at.

At the end of the day, there are quite a lot of great DOPs now using Sony Venice.

Hell, Greig Fraser, who may honestly begin forging his way to being a younger generation's Roger Deakins with the role he is on, has opted to shoot 'True Love' on the Venice over Arri, which he was practically married to as a brand up until this project.

At the end of the day, for all the talk and love ARRI gets, there have been plenty enough great DOPs that have now opted to go all in on the Venice system because it has excellent color science, and a significant boost in sensor/resolution compared to anything ARRI has to offer. Not to mention a more compact camera size, which allows these filmmakers to employ some rather progressive camera movements when needed.

James Cameron is a filmmaker whose technical prowess I'd not only never question -- but would blindly place 100% of my faith in in that he knows his shit better than anyone else in his industry.

People can say what they want to about 'Avatar' as a film. But not a single soul on here could hold their own against him when just talking the pure technical science behind making a film. That dude is just built different. He's like the GSP of technical filmmaking.