Avatar: The Way of Water | 16 DEC 2022 | Don't worry guys, critics like it

[kowhite]

I would say, though, that the only reason The Dark Knight got away with the name change is because that's been one of Batman's most famous and very well-established nicknames (alongside The Caped Crusader) since long before the movie itself.A different title for Avatar 2 could be interesting, but I seriously doubt it would be a smart move. Definitely not a good business one, which makes me think Cameron will opt for a subtitle and/or number or Roman Numeral.I like subtitles, myself.

I'm hoping they'll call it Ratava.But no doubt, anything not called Avatar will present some challenges for the marketing, no matter how good the name might be. While I have no doubt they could easily inform the public that whatever it's called is in fact, the sequel to Avatar, simply not having Avatar in the name means they have to make sure people know it's Avatar. And well, an extra step is an extra step, regardless if it can be overcome or not.

[phillip]

I would prefer that they went with a new name because an avatar was what a human jumped into and was a main focus of the film whereas avatar 2 (or whatever they call it) will probably be more focused on the Na'vi

[Cedarpoint1111]

There will still be avatars in the movie. Have we forgotten Norm??

[kowhite]

There will still be avatars in the movie. Have we forgotten Norm??

True, but when the title is directly related to a central aspect of a key part of the story, it just resonates a little better than when it's describing something that's merely a supporting element of the story.That being said...maybe the Avatar concept will play more prominently than many of us think, so who knows.Not to mention...I'm not sure I or anyone will actually care if it's called Avatar: Whatever, while having little to do with the concept of Avatars.

[Cedarpoint1111]

Exactly, as long as people know its a sequel to Avatar, I don't think they care what it is called.

[Ozymandias]

Avatars or Avatar 2: Pandora Day, will do.

[Neo]

'Avatar' star Sigourney Weaver: '3D will be the future'

[Hatebox]

^ Tell that to the millions of Americans and Europeans who've had enough of 3D. It's got a long way to go to truly be 'the future'.

[fmpro]

3D is fantastic if its done in Camoroun style..But he can only make so many movies.. So thats the problem..

[kayumanggi]

3D is cool.

[vc2002]

^ Tell that to the millions of Americans and Europeans who've had enough of 3D. It's got a long way to go to truly be 'the future'.

That's a little exaggerating. People are tired of 3D done in bad, not the format itself. People are getting skeptical becasue there are too many studio-forced 3D out there that are not worth the extra charge on the tickets.And if someone is to blame for this situation, it's the studios themselves.

[Elessar]

I can't wait for 48/60fps 3D, which will eliminate motion artifacts (for the most part). It's gonna look awesome! *geeks out*

[Magic]

I can't wait for 48/60fps 3D, which will eliminate motion artifacts (for the most part). It's gonna look awesome! *geeks out*

I can't wait for the time when I won't have to wear the annoying glasses that darken the picture. Edited January 21, 2012 by Magic

[Magic]

They can put a man on the moon (conspiracy theorists fuck off) decades ago but they can't give me 3D without glasses in 2012? Come on!

[Elessar]

Glasses are not going away anytime soon. I don't mind them. That's not to say they aren't working on ways to brighten the picture (in a properly calibrated theater it should be pretty comparatively bright to 2D already but we all know theaters like to cut corners) but you'll still wear glasses, for a long time, in theaters at least.

[vc2002]

They can put a man on the moon (conspiracy theorists fuck off) decades ago but they can't give me 3D without glasses in 2012? Come on!

Why would they? 3D with glasses works fine for most of the people.

[druv10]

The problem with glasses is that it lowers the brightness of the movie.

Edited January 21, 2012 by druv10

[Elessar]

Funny, i've never sit with my glasses on and thought to myself "ugh, that's a dark picture". Sure, in direct comparison 2D is brighter still, but it's not such a big deal to me.And as i've said, they are working on ways to make it better, i'd guess with trying to put as much light as possible on the screen, so that whith glasses on, the picture has the correct, natural brightness.

[Cedarpoint1111]

I hate 3D because it gives me a searing headache, not because the brightness is low. It takes like 20 minutes before I can finally get used to them.

[SchumacherFTW]

I must be in a minority, i've never had a problem, only felt screwed out of cash 4 times, and generally enjoy the 3D experience. As I know that it's not going away any time soon I even shelled out $20 for a good, comfortable pair of glasses. Call me crazy for that, but I felt like it was a reasonable plan, espescially as i've seen about 50 3D movies with them since buying them in August 2010.