When James Cameron\u2019s original Avatar came out in 2009, it\u2019s no secret that the real draw was the groundbreaking VFX work. Creating photorealistic, performance-captured aliens and a lush, immersive planet, it was a movie that actually encouraged people to shell out for those little 3D glasses, and be transported to a new world. Box-office records soon followed.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne of the big thrills I had on the first Avatar \u2013 and it was a funny moment \u2013 I screened a scene for [lead actor] Sam Worthington for the first time,\u201d longtime Cameron collaborator and producer Jon Landau told RadioTimes.com<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIt was a scene of Jake Sully waking up. In the middle of it, he laughed. And I got nervous. I looked over at him. A couple of seconds later, he laughed again. I looked over.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe turns to me, and goes, \u2018Jon, that\u2019s a good laugh, mate. That\u2019s me<\/em> up there on the screen.\u2019 And that\u2019s the commitment we make to these actors.\u201d<\/p>\n

Now, with the long-awaited Avatar sequel The Way of Water<\/a>, the filmmakers are pushing things even further, using evolved technology and new tools to push the boundaries of what\u2019s possible in VFX. To find out more, we caught up with Landau and VFX supervisor and second unit director Richard Baneham.<\/p>\n

We just had to remember one thing \u2013 never, ever call what they use motion capture\u2026<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not motion capture<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\u201cI\u2019m going to stop you,\u201d Landau told RadioTimes.com<\/strong>, seconds into our first VFX question. \u201cWe call it performance-capture.<\/p>\n
\u201cLet me give you the distinction, just so you understand. Motion-capture, to me, is missing a key letter in front of it \u2013 an \u2018e\u2019, for \u2018e<\/em>motion capture\u2019. We want the emotion. We want the performance.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we weren\u2019t capturing the face, which is the important thing for us to capture \u2013 and if we\u2019re only capturing the body, maybe we would go with \u2018motion-capture\u2019. But we want the facial performance.\u201d<\/p>
Interestingly, while the exact facial performance recorded doesn\u2019t always make it to screen, VFX supervisor Baneham says it\u2019s no reflection on the actors \u2013 and in fact, it was usually to help capture their performance more accurately.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe intention is not to change the data from the actors\u2019 performances to make it more credible. It\u2019s to bring it closer to the actors\u2019 performance,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat we do is, we have references cameras onstage. We shoot with sometimes 12, sometimes 16 cameras, to try to witness everything that the actor does. Sam [Worthington] says it best: when we\u2019re on our stage, there\u2019s nowhere else to hide. When you\u2019re shooting on a normal live-action movie, there\u2019s one, maybe two, cameras \u2013 and you\u2019re aware of their presence.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this, we\u2019re asking our actors to be incredibly earnest, because the camera itself could end up anywhere. In some ways, I think it\u2019s a more honest version of acting. Or, at least, we ask our actors to be honest all the time, and we get it all the time. It\u2019s a hefty requirement.\u201d<\/p>\n
It\u2019s all about the face<\/strong><\/h2>\n $\"""\"$ <\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/div>