Latest Movie News Headlines

Avatar 2 to begin filming by the end of 2013, possibly using 48fps

Nov. 28, 2012by: Alex Maidy

With AVATAR 2 being pushed back to a 2015 release date, James Cameron had given himself a nice pre-production buffer. That time looks like it will be spent finishing the screenplays for the sequels and prequel to the biggest grossing film of all time.

Cameron told the press in New Zealand that he is still working on writing the films. He told them it was all New Zealand's fault: “Unfortunately it’s too damn distracting because it’s so beautiful [...] I want to get these scripts nailed down, I don’t want to be writing the movie in post production [...] We kind of did that on the first picture, I ended up cutting out a lot of scenes and so on and I don’t want to do that again.”

It remains to be seen exactly how much work is left on the scripts, but Cameron continued to say he wants them finished by February 2013 so shooting can begin by the end of the year. That means there will be just about 2 years from the beginning of shooting to the potential release of the first sequel, assuming it is released around the holidays like the original was.

Cameron was also asked if he planned to utilize the same higher frame rate that Peter Jackson is trying to usher in with THE HOBBIT movies. I would have thought it was a foregone conclusion that Cameron would embrace 48fps, but it doesn't seem to be so cut and dry.

“If there is acceptance of 48, then that will pave the way for AVATAR [sequels] to take advantage of it [...] We charged out ahead on 3D with Avatar, now Peter’s doing it with THE HOBBIT. It takes that kind of bold move to make change.”

Considering Cameron made a huge gamble by filming AVATAR in 3D, even if it did pay off, it seems like his reluctance to go with 48fps until he sees how THE HOBBIT fares speaks volumes about the format.

Either in the higher frame rate or just plain old upcharged 3D, it looks like AVATAR 2 is moving according to schedule.

Source: ScreenRant

Related Articles

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

4:34PM on 11/29/2012
Cameron is reluctant to shoot 48fps because it costs a lot more to render out double the amount of frames for a pure CG movie. It's a lot less if you're shooting a film with a practical live action camera.
Cameron is reluctant to shoot 48fps because it costs a lot more to render out double the amount of frames for a pure CG movie. It's a lot less if you're shooting a film with a practical live action camera.
Your Reply:



+4
8:31AM on 11/29/2012
I'm going to be blunt and honest: I couldn't care less about another Avatar movie. The world isn't that interesting that I want to see another one. And it also makes me angry that it may be the reason we never see James Cameron bring to life Gunnm, aka Battle Angel Alita.
I'm going to be blunt and honest: I couldn't care less about another Avatar movie. The world isn't that interesting that I want to see another one. And it also makes me angry that it may be the reason we never see James Cameron bring to life Gunnm, aka Battle Angel Alita.
Your Reply:



8:22AM on 11/29/2012

whats the hold up?

sam worthington's skyrocketing career? James Cousteau's next great undersea adventure? LOL glad to hear there's a schedule at least. anxious to see Hobbit now to give this 48 fps a try.
sam worthington's skyrocketing career? James Cousteau's next great undersea adventure? LOL glad to hear there's a schedule at least. anxious to see Hobbit now to give this 48 fps a try.
Your Reply:



11:05PM on 11/28/2012
so hobbit is still going 48 fps? guess I wont be seeing it. And what the hell is up with doing something as risky as that with The Hobbit? If it is terrible, it could torpedo a high valued film and if the movie finds success, the results arent exactly impartial because something connected to Lord of the Rings is bound to find success despite a horrible frame rate
so hobbit is still going 48 fps? guess I wont be seeing it. And what the hell is up with doing something as risky as that with The Hobbit? If it is terrible, it could torpedo a high valued film and if the movie finds success, the results arent exactly impartial because something connected to Lord of the Rings is bound to find success despite a horrible frame rate
Your Reply:



6:41AM on 11/29/2012
You can still watch it in the normal frame rate. The odds of finding a theatre that does the high frame rate are few and far between. I'll be watching it in normal mode then down the track ill watch the hfr version.
You can still watch it in the normal frame rate. The odds of finding a theatre that does the high frame rate are few and far between. I'll be watching it in normal mode then down the track ill watch the hfr version.
7:18AM on 11/29/2012
The 48fps is ONLY if you're watching in 3-D. They packaged the two together. If you see in 2-D, you get 24fps.
The 48fps is ONLY if you're watching in 3-D. They packaged the two together. If you see in 2-D, you get 24fps.
7:19AM on 11/29/2012
The 48fps is ONLY if you're watching in 3-D. They packaged the two together. If you see in 2-D, you get 24fps.
The 48fps is ONLY if you're watching in 3-D. They packaged the two together. If you see in 2-D, you get 24fps.