Avatar to get three sequels

[Joe Cox]

James Cameron says two films "would not be enough"... :O http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23546537

I then found this old blog on James Cameron's love of 3D. He reckoned all films would be in 3D by 2016. Hmm! Still never seen Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstacy... http://www.whathifi.com/blog/james-cameron-king-of-the-3d-world-0

 

[Supreme]

That movie was awful. There must be some serious coinage being made, I can see no ther reason to persue sequals otherwise

 

[Deleted member 2457]

No way! :O

8)

 

[Deleted member 2457]

I wonder what Eywa will think? :?

 

[Paul.]

Pocahantis 2: journey to a new world.

That's one sequel covered...

 

[simonlewis]

Wasn't the film long enough first time round.

 

[iQ Speakers]

 

[iQ Speakers]

I think i may of mis read the post!!

 

[Frank Harvey]

If they really have to make some sequels, then at least get a leading actor with a hint of charisma about them, unlike Sam Worthington.

 

[theflyingwasp]

I didn't hate avatar the action and special effects were awesome and in the home it's still the film to beat for 3d .i just feel that without all the hype surrounding the 3d at the time the film would have made the same as your average Pixar/Disney movie.james Cameron has said he will be filming the sequels in 48/60 frames per second which after the negative reviews of the hobbit at 48fps might hurt it further as 3d is losing its appeal .i think the human eye perceives motion at 66fps so having said all that avatar 2 at 60fps in 3d in 4k will look fricken awesome it will look almost real and perhaps by 2016 3d glasses will be a thing of the past.

 

[strapped for cash]

I hope the Na'vi plug their hair into trees in the sequels. They were really in touch with nature and the planet and stuff. It really brought out the emotion when they all got shot.

 

[strapped for cash]

i think the human eye perceives motion at 66fps

We don't see in frames-per-second.

 

[mr malarky]

i think the human eye perceives motion at 66fps

We don't see in frames-per-second.

True, though I think what theflyingwasp was driving at is that the human eye's ability to detect differences in frame rate apparently drops off beyond 60(ish)fps?

 

[theflyingwasp]

Yes .sorry .what I ment was If I was walking past you I think the human eye perceives that as the equivalent of say 66fps .if I'm wrong someone please correct .hence the reason James Cameron might perhaps shoot the avatar sequels at 60fps .it will be almost like real life plus when u add 4k to the mix it will be an amazing image .BUT with the hobbit backlash at 48fps he might not.again someone please correct me but after 60-70fps the image actual starts to slow down?..

 

[fr0g]

I'll be watching.

Not in 3D, I get ill.

And I like Sam Worthington.

The film was what it needed to be IMO. Cheesy, generic, OTT, stunning to look at.

More of the same please

 

[chelstondave]

They have to go back to Pandora as its the only place where there's hardtofindium, notmuchofthataroundhereium and youjustcantgetitanywhereelseium

 

[mr malarky]

They have to go back to Pandora as its the only place where there's hardtofindium, notmuchofthataroundhereium and youjustcantgetitanywhereelseium

:rofl:

 

[mr malarky]

Yes .sorry .what I ment was If I was walking past you I think the human eye perceives that as the equivalent of say 66fps .if I'm wrong someone please correct .hence the reason James Cameron might perhaps shoot the avatar sequels at 60fps .it will be almost like real life plus when u add 4k to the mix it will be an amazing image .BUT with the hobbit backlash at 48fps he might not.again someone please correct me but after 60-70fps the image actual starts to slow down?..

I quite liked the Hobbit in 48fps in 3D - I'll admit it took about 15-20 minutes to get used to, but some of the scenes were excellent (eg the panning shots in the scene where they're being chased through the underground Orc camp).