Jon Landau Describes Use Of "Performance Capture In Water" For AVATAR Sequels

"after he delivered arguably the best use of 3D ever in the 2009 movie" I think the recent Oz movie is refarding the 3D at least on par with Avatar.

^like tron legacy was'nt soulless lol

life of pi was best use of 3d

Story wise Avatar is so overrated it isn't even funny. Go rewatching the cartoon Ferngully. Its almost the exact same thing.

*rewatch*

Avatar was great. Off topic but, is there any news on zoe saldana playing Gamora?

Avatar was revolutionary. It's why Jim's a [frick]ing ACE director.
While i don't think i'll be as invested in the story since it was more of a "one-off" experience for me, the world he creates and the obvious effort being put into it means a guaranteed seat for me in IMAX 3D opening week.

"wrap up the story arc of our two main characters," AKA "Bite the dust" AKA "DIE!"

Woah, so are we gonma get cool under water enemies? That would be so cool

when i hear under water mocap i think aquaman

dumb movie that doesn't need a sequel

someones going to die

3D is the most worthless pile of crap I've ever had the displeasure of paying for. A feeble gimmick I will happily never support again.

On a positive note, looking forward to something new in Avatar 2 but still doubtful I'll see in theaters.

Meh, I felt the characters' arc were already wrapped up... but whatever... a James Cameron 3D film underwater is enough to win me over. And the top 3D films seem to be considered by fans and critics as (1) Avatar, (2) Hugo, and (3) Life Of Pi. Pandora simply was a 3D world, I haven't seen Hugo so I can't vouch for it but the way Scorsece explains it is just brilliant, and Life Of Pi tried new things with aspect ratio and going out of frame to create "negative space". So I definitely have to say that Pi the best use of 3D for storytelling yet. I don't think the film would have been that good without it, and gladly since many scenes were steady shots, it was also calm on my eyes.

As for conversions, there are a few select shots that look good, but overall... it's a lite use of the tech. The problem I usually get it that the edge of objects look fuzzy. But on the bright side, because the effect is soft, the audience doesn't seem to get nausea. It might just be me, but John Carter was a good conversion, maybe because of the brightness of the cinematography. Then there is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey which was painless to me in 48fps, but not always experience enhancing.

Um... I haven't talked about 3D in a while... I guess this is the result. /rant

Avatar was my first 3D movie experience & I'm glad it was. After 9+ years of Cameron working with the technology to perfect the experience. For me it was aesthetically wonderful & I left the theatre feeling a sense of awe. Though Avatar's story/script were clearly taken from or inspired by other movies or sources I still found the movie to be entertaining & a incredible visual experience. Yes I would like to see the next script/story for Avatar 2 & 3 be more original vs cliche. Also deeper character development would be nice. Mainly the villains seemed one dimensional. Perhaps partly due to that initial experience & awesome visuals that despite it's downsides Avatar is on the top of my list of 3D movies along with Life of Pi both being #1. I also enjoyed The Hobbit. It's 48fps was pretty cool & I was too immersed in the story, but feel the 3D was great there too. Hugo also had some well done 3D moments. Especially the opening snow scene. With 3D it's all about who is using it & how. There are a number of 3D movies I have seen since, and it feels like an afterthought, or I feel it's not really needed & movie would be just fine as it is without it. A good number of movies just toss it in to make more money & nothing more. With a few of those I feel the 3D made the experience worse. So it's a matter of who is running the show & the artistic talent & consideration going into it all. When the new Avatar movies are released I intend to be there watching it in IMAX 3D 60fps.