Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

riegspsych325 t1_j6pf6gr wrote

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?

1

Asha_Brea t1_j6pfou3 wrote

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.

2

riegspsych325 t1_j6pgdp9 wrote

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

1

TheTylerWaves t1_j6pghqd wrote

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.

1

Aquagirl2001 OP t1_j6pha4q wrote

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.

1

Antic_Opus t1_j6pdxo0 wrote

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.

4

Aquagirl2001 OP t1_j6pgwjx wrote

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.

0

bookwormaesthetic t1_j6pfnpf wrote

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.

1