"avatar 2" to be shot in 60fps

Adrianr · 18 Mar 2013 at 13:36

Bit hard to tell from such short clips, but the parts that aren't animated just look like super clean behind the scenes footage. In other words, not like a film and thus, rubbish. I want film to suspend my disbelief, and for that it can't look too 'real', whatever that constitutes in cinema these days. Just feels like high number chasing again. 720p, 1080p, 2k, 4k, 24fps, 30fps, 60FPS!!!! We're at the top, we're going higher!!!

Syph · 18 Mar 2013 at 14:02

I don't know if was just the nature of the clip, but the 'real' sections made me feel as though I was watching a really expensive sci-fi soap opera intro. I was expecting a 'sponsored by Harvey's' ad to appear.

Like with 3D, I think I could probably only really appreciate it in the cinema itself. It's not immersive enough at home. I like BluRay for the clarity and sound... I don't feel as though 48/60 would add to it. That may be an adjustment thing though.

Participant · 19 Mar 2013 at 07:10

aardvark said:
maybe they should spend more time on the script instead.

You think it's one or the other? That the same people do both?!

Adrianr said:
Bit hard to tell from such short clips, but the parts that aren't animated just look like super clean behind the scenes footage. In other words, not like a film and thus, rubbish. I want film to suspend my disbelief, and for that it can't look too 'real', whatever that constitutes in cinema these days. Just feels like high number chasing again. 720p, 1080p, 2k, 4k, 24fps, 30fps, 60FPS!!!! We're at the top, we're going higher!!!

Interesting. I would have thought that the best way to suspend one's disbelief would be to have the most accurate image possible.

cu3ed · 19 Mar 2013 at 10:56

I found the first one one of the most uninspired stories ever told, with worse acting and the FX are never going to be enough to pull it back, was nothing more than an extended technical display that still didnt stop me switching off halfway through.

Its a shame when the cinema is reduced to a FX gimmick to sell.

krooton · 19 Mar 2013 at 16:12

cu3ed said:
I found the first one one of the most uninspired stories ever told, with worse acting and the FX are never going to be enough to pull it back, was nothing more than an extended technical display that still didnt stop me switching off halfway through.

Its a shame when the cinema is reduced to a FX gimmick to sell.

If you didn't watch it on IMAX 3D, then you never got to experience it properly. It was a feast of SFX in that instance, and balanced how terrible the actual film itself was.

Participant · 19 Mar 2013 at 18:56

IMAX 3D version blew my mind it was so immersive and pretty. I loved it. For me it was far more about the experience than the movie, like one of those shuttles on pneumatic legs you get at theme parks.

aardvark · 20 Mar 2013 at 12:41

Robbie G said:
You think it's one or the other? That the same people do both?!

considering the standard of many films these days maybe they do!!

ubersonic · 21 Mar 2013 at 10:00

Never liked the first one, lame story and I guess the visual effects were cool but in all honesty I would have preferred cool puppets/models to CGI, maybe its just because I'm from the video game generation but whereas older people or those who never played games were all like "zomg an alien!" I was more like "meh, a wireframe object with a texture mapped around it, can't see that at home >.>"