Submitted by Aquagirl2001 t3_10qdno8 in movies
[removed]
Submitted by Aquagirl2001 t3_10qdno8 in movies
[removed]
I can’t help but to assume that a bulk of Avatar 2’s budget was developing the tech needed to no-cap the actors in the water. Surely, that would mean the budgets for its sequels won’t be nearly as high, right?
I don't think the budget of the sequels will be lower.
Cameron HAS to make the next movie prettier than the second one, that is prettier than the first one.
If the third movie looks as just as good as the second, it will be a failure.
well it certainly seemed that money was well spent. The Navi and Sullys looked amazingly realistic. They really handled the sense of scale and size differences in scenes with humans and avatars. Even the bits of Edie Falco walking around in a stilted(?) exo-suit with the recombinants and drinking coffee looked great
But how do you top avatar 2. Shit looked lifelike. I can't think of a single item or scene that looked less than real.
Yeah, there were really no standout scenes that brought you out of the movie. Not a single instance of "eww, what was that?".
I had those every 4 minutes in Wakanda Forever.
Name to post ratio crazy
Pardon?
Serious answer: Budget goes to a lot more than just the actors and effects. It goes into the logistics of getting everything where it needs to be, liability insurance, permits, ect ect.
Funny answer: Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
When most of your movie is done by the VFX artists, you should probably give them a proper budget to work with. Some of the effects were below the standard of some youtubers who just do this as a hobby.
The MCU special effects look bad because many of the directors do not plan well in advance for what shots they need "we will figure it out in post" and they then rush the VFX artists.
[deleted] t1_j6pdjme wrote
[deleted]