James Cameron's Avatar (2009) [Archive]

Morris Schæffer

11-29-2007, 05:11 PM

Here's a pic of the teaser poster which appears genuine:

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_4/AvatarMoviePoster.jpg

Also, the photographer claimed that the photo had a strange 3-D quality to it, that the logo and the earth pop out, and the light around it moves when you do.

And a pic of a Weta workshop:

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/avatarart.jpg

More info:

The Internet Movie Database is listing 2 time Cameron collaborator James Horner as Composer on Avatar (although no confirmation has been made). Many fans will be pleased as the score for Aliens ranks amongst the best around (and is still used in many trailers till this day) plus his work on Titanic earned him 2 Oscar wins. Recent works include Flightplan, The New World and Mel Gibson’s Mayan epic Apocalypto. Click on pic to go to the IMDB.

Perhaps my most anticipated film. Like ever perhaps.:)

Ezee E

11-29-2007, 05:25 PM

Here's a pic of the teaser poster which appears genuine:

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_4/AvatarMoviePoster.jpg

And a pic of a Weta workshop:

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/avatarart.jpg

More info:

Perhaps my most anticipated film. Like ever perhaps.:)
Yeah. It's definitely one of the movies that I'm anticipating more then anything else that I've ever wanted to see.

megladon8

11-29-2007, 05:27 PM

Has there been any more info on exactly what is supposed to be so incredibly groundbreaking in this movie?

I remember a rumor floating around a few months ago that Cameron said he somehow came up with a way to make the film 3-D without the use of glasses.

Saya

11-29-2007, 05:34 PM

I'm really looking forward to this movie. I thought it would be out in 2008, but it's 2009. :sad:

MadMan

11-29-2007, 07:56 PM

Finally James Cameron is getting off his ass and making another movie. A man of his obvious talents should not retire or stick to making only documentaries.

Morris Schæffer

11-29-2007, 09:38 PM

Has there been any more info on exactly what is supposed to be so incredibly groundbreaking in this movie?

Beats me. So far everything sounds utterly non-groundbreaking.

Ezee E

11-29-2007, 09:40 PM

that poster makes me think of this:

http://picture.yatego.com/images/44853938baef11.7/fountain.jpg

Ezee E

11-29-2007, 09:45 PM

This is all I can find about the breakthrough of this movie.

Other technological innovations includes a performance-capture stage, called The Volume, which is six times larger than previously used and an improved method of capturing facial expressions. The tool is a small individually made skull cap with a tiny camera attached to it, located in front of the actors' face and who collects all information about their facial expressions and eyes, which is then transmitted to the computers. Besides a real time virtual world, the team is also experimenting with a way of letting computer generated characters interact with real actors on a real, live-action set while shooting live action.[32]

Kinda whoa to me.

megladon8

11-29-2007, 10:30 PM

This is all I can find about the breakthrough of this movie.

Kinda whoa to me.

That doesn't really make sense to me though.

Are they making holograms of these characters so that the actors can interact with them?

How do live actors interact with computer generated characters?

Ezee E

11-29-2007, 10:32 PM

That doesn't really make sense to me though.

Are they making holograms of these characters so that the actors can interact with them?

How do live actors interact with computer generated characters?
James Cameron's hologram is laughing in your face.

James Cameron is laughing on his golden toilet which is no hologram at all.

Wryan

11-30-2007, 01:02 AM

James Horner has produced a lot of good scores.

And a lot that make me feel like I've been molested.

So this film is about aliens or something? War, etc?

Raiders

11-30-2007, 02:10 AM

Will this film adhere to the 160x90 pixel ratio allowed? And more importantly, will it be phallic?

Melville

11-30-2007, 03:49 AM

Will this film adhere to the 160x90 pixel ratio allowed? And more importantly, will it be phallic?

:lol:

MadMan

12-01-2007, 04:12 AM

James Cameron's hologram is laughing in your face.

James Cameron is laughing on his golden toilet which is no hologram at all.I fail to understand why anyone would want a golden toilet. What a waste of money. Even for gazillionares.

Will this film adhere to the 160x90 pixel ratio allowed? And more importantly, will it be phallic?These are questions only boner has the answer to.

Boner M

12-01-2007, 04:55 AM

These are questions only boner has the answer to.
Certain theatres are going to issue glasses to each patron, which when worn, replaces every vaguely phallic object in the film with an erect penis. The future of cinema is already here!

MadMan

12-01-2007, 07:06 AM

Certain theatres are going to issue glasses to each patron, which when worn, replaces every vaguely phallic object in the film with an erect penis. The future of cinema is already here!This is why you have more rep than me :lol:

See people! Answers! From the man himself! The future of cinema looks bright indeed. And full of phallic objects. :P

Morris Schæffer

12-01-2007, 06:08 PM

Saw Cameron on Entourage today. The simple act of seeing the man opening his mouth causes considerable pleasure.

Watashi

12-01-2007, 06:26 PM

Saw Cameron on Entourage today. The simple act of seeing the man opening his mouth causes considerable pleasure.
......

Cameron is not that good.

Morris Schæffer

12-01-2007, 06:36 PM

......

Cameron is not that good.

It's no secret that I love action, and as a discernible fan of the genre, I'd say he's up there with the very best precisely because he doesn't neglect what makes genuinely great action engaging. So while Aliens amps up the testosterone compared to the original, it's still plenty scary and filled with memorable characters that one cares about.

Ezee E

12-01-2007, 11:24 PM

Saw Cameron on Entourage today. The simple act of seeing the man opening his mouth causes considerable pleasure.
That reads real strange.

But I'm a huge Cameron fan. I agree that he's one of the best there is, not only for technical mastery, but the fact that his action films can be taken seriously and be ridiculously entertaining at the same time. Not many can pull that off.

KK2.0

12-03-2007, 08:18 PM

Saw Cameron on Entourage today. The simple act of seeing the man opening his mouth causes considerable pleasure.

I like Cameron but not THAT much :D

I've been following this project since it was announced with extreme curiosity, not only for the technology, but to watch him trying to go into Lucas territory of Space Operas. He can pull of something compelling and exciting, i just hope he doesn't get carried away too much with his new toys and forget he's still making a film.

Morris Schæffer

12-12-2007, 10:57 AM

http://www.mania.com/56890.html

Pushed back to December 2009.

:cry:

Ezee E

12-12-2007, 12:14 PM

http://www.mania.com/56890.html

Pushed back to December 2009.

:cry:
It's James Cameron. That's no surprise really.

Dukefrukem

12-12-2007, 12:14 PM

http://www.mania.com/56890.html

Pushed back to December 2009.

:cry:

nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! !

bac0n

12-12-2007, 02:26 PM

James Horner has produced a lot of good scores.

And a lot that make me feel like I've been molested.

So this film is about aliens or something? War, etc?

No-one answered this question, and I'd like to know too, so... what the hell is this movie about?

Morris Schæffer

12-12-2007, 03:19 PM

No-one answered this question, and I'd like to know too, so... what the hell is this movie about?

Oh like you couldn't find a synopsis somewhere on the net :P

So what the heck is this movie about? It’s pretty standard stuff really. A distant future where man has spoiled and overpopulated the Earth so badly that we’ve gone out into the cosmos searching for other planets to rape. The human race’s prime candidate is Pandora, a planet in a nearby star system inhabited by intelligent, bipedal natives. Our window into this world in this early draft of the script is a disillusioned, poverty-stricken, paraplegic war veteran named Josh Sully. There are other minor characters involved, most notably Grace, a haggard, rebellious scientist played by Sigourney Weaver and Zuleika, a way too sexy alien babe being voiced by Zoe Saldana, but Josh is the real focus of everything. My understanding is that in the most recent script being used to shoot the flick, Josh’s name has been changed to Jack Sully and he’s played by Sam Worthington. Us Joshs never seem to get a shot at being the hero. For now though, we’ll call him Josh. Josh is, by a series of coincidences, ushered into the Avatar program. The Avatar program is what humans are using to communicate with Pandora’s natives, the Na'vi (because aliens love names with apostrophes). It’s the movie’s prime gimmick, so let me explain it. Human DNA and Na’vi DNA is fused together to create a clone which is, essentially, a Na’vi with no brain. They call it an Avatar. Human operators then use some sort of linking device which allows their mind to inhabit the Avatar, and then walk amongst the Na’vi and (in theory) better communicate with them.

Kurosawa Fan

12-12-2007, 03:25 PM

The planet's name is Pandora? Seriously? Couldn't think up another, less obvious name than that? Really?

Dukefrukem

12-12-2007, 03:45 PM

The planet's name is Pandora? Seriously? Couldn't think up another, less obvious name than that? Really?

would you please enlightens on what is so obvious?

Kurosawa Fan

12-12-2007, 03:48 PM

would you please enlightens on what is so obvious?

Pandora? Pandora's Box (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pandora%27s%20box)? Opening Pandora's Box? Read the first definition of that link.

In other words, I'm sure everything will go swimmingly on this new planet that man is inhabiting.

D_Davis

12-12-2007, 03:53 PM

[ETM]

12-12-2007, 04:30 PM

Cameron has spent most of this time developing technology, the story is just something that is sure to be a safe bet with the audiences and something that'll promote the technology in the best way.

lovejuice

12-12-2007, 04:57 PM

I am excited for this, but it really does seem like a lot of work is being put into something that reeks of sci-fi cliche to the max.

Hopefully all the greatness will be in the execution.

I would love to see this kind of craftsmanship and time given to an Alfred Bester or Theodore Sturgeon story. Now that would really be something special.

i actually beg to differ. a "new technology" -- granted that what it is -- is best suited for a solid cliche than a complicated story. besides, cameron is a guy who has done damingly fine cliche all his life.

D_Davis

12-12-2007, 05:06 PM

i actually beg to differ. a "new technology" -- granted that what it is -- is best suited for a solid cliche than a complicated story. besides, cameron is a guy who has done damingly fine cliche all his life.

Yes - I can see this side as well.

Although, I can't help but conjure up memories of the Final Fantasy film.

Sycophant

12-12-2007, 05:10 PM

Perhaps someone can remind me... what's the big step forward in technology here? Searches have left me unclear.

lovejuice

12-12-2007, 05:14 PM

Yes - I can see this side as well.

Although, I can't help but conjure up memories of the Final Fantasy film.

:) well, you know, Hironobu Sakaguchi << James Cameron.

besides, we all know, the greatest cinematic technology Avatar offers is this magical device that pulls cameron off his ass and come back to direct full feature film.

D_Davis

12-12-2007, 05:21 PM

besides, we all know, the greatest cinematic technology Avatar offers is this magical device that pulls cameron off his ass and come back to direct full feature film.

Right. Let's just thank God this isn't another documentary about the Titanic.

KK2.0

12-14-2007, 03:40 PM

;15465']Cameron has spent most of this time developing technology, the story is just something that is sure to be a safe bet with the audiences and something that'll promote the technology in the best way.

Agreed, i've heard comparisons to Star Wars and i think it's a good indication of what direction this will take.

I only hope it's better than the crappy Star Wars prequels.

*runs*

*stops*

Well, this is match-cut, perhaps there's more people here who actually agrees that the prequels were crap. :P

Morris Schæffer

12-14-2007, 03:46 PM

Agreed, i've heard comparisons to Star Wars and i think it's a good indication of what direction this will take.

I only hope it's better than the crappy Star Wars prequels.

*runs*

*stops*

Well, this is match-cut, perhaps there's more people here who actually agrees that the prequels were crap. :P

Sith rocks, the rest we can agree on.

megladon8

12-29-2007, 10:09 PM

An explanation of the technology used to make the film. (http://www.5min.com/Video/Experience-A-New-Generation-of-3D-2881700)

Mysterious Dude

12-30-2007, 01:38 AM

You still gotta wear glasses, huh? Eh, fuck that.

Ezee E

12-30-2007, 01:47 AM

An explanation of the technology used to make the film. (http://www.5min.com/Video/Experience-A-New-Generation-of-3D-2881700)
Those seem like they were for his documentaries, and not everything he's pulling out for Avatar.

Raiders

12-30-2007, 01:57 AM

megladon8

12-30-2007, 02:14 AM

Maybe the technology here is like that Wiimote guy. Infrared glasses will be given to each person and a big infrared camera will be mounted at the front of the auditorium, thus making the image jump out of the screen and allow people to move their heads around in their seat and see more of the image.

Or maybe not.

Now that would be cool.

But honestly, the impression I got from that video is that it's not much different (if at all) from the 3-D technology that's out there right now.

Ezee E

12-30-2007, 09:28 AM

Now that would be cool.

But honestly, the impression I got from that video is that it's not much different (if at all) from the 3-D technology that's out there right now.
The 3-D isn't any different then Beowulf. It's the approach of the special effects in the movie itself that will be different.

transmogrifier

12-30-2007, 03:54 PM

I couldn't care less about this movie. Seems to me, it's all about having the biggest dick, metaphorically speaking, and that's about it.

amberlita

12-31-2007, 01:15 AM

I couldn't care less about this movie. Seems to me, it's all about having the biggest dick, metaphorically speaking, and that's about it.

yeah but the biggest dick....IN 3-D!!!!

:pritch:

MadMan

01-04-2008, 07:37 PM

yeah but the biggest dick....IN 3-D!!!!

:pritch:The MPAA won't be happy about that.....

And I don't care about the technology. I'm just happy that Cameron got off his lazy money covered ass and is making another movie.

Sycophant

01-04-2008, 07:41 PM

The MPAA won't be happy about that.....

And I don't care about the technology. I'm just happy that Cameron got off his lazy money covered ass and is making another movie.Since Titanic, the man has directed four documentaries and created a network TV series with a couple other producing gigs. Soderbergh he ain't, but he's hardly Quentin Tarantino.

MadMan

01-07-2008, 05:26 PM

Since Titanic, the man has directed four documentaries and created a network TV series with a couple other producing gigs. Soderbergh he ain't, but he's hardly Quentin Tarantino.That would be productive for someone who isn't as talented as Cameron is. The guy should have made at least a movie or two during that time (and those documentaries weren't full length feature films).

Morris Schæffer

08-31-2008, 09:49 AM

I wish there was more, but all I can do is Sigourney Weaver on the goddamn phone:

http://www.widescreen-vision.de/?article_id=656015

Scroll down a bit and hit the play arrow!

Dukefrukem

08-31-2008, 02:46 PM

this is still coming out in 09 right? no more delays...

Qrazy

08-31-2008, 02:56 PM

The MPAA won't be happy about that.....

And I don't care about the technology. I'm just happy that Cameron got off his lazy money covered ass and is making another movie.

Hmm the last time a sci fi leviathan took a lengthy hiatus and then got off their ass to make another movie yielded... The Phantom Menace.

Pop Trash

08-31-2008, 05:38 PM

So it's a more pretentious version of Wall-E basically? Or it sounds like a decent Star Trek:TNG script. I love Cameron but I hope he doesn't go the way of Lucas and forget the human/storytelling elements amid the CGI. I mean Aliens, Terminator 1&2, The Abyss, and Titanic wouldn't be crap without the vested interest in the human characters.

Morris Schæffer

08-31-2008, 07:02 PM

Hmm the last time a sci fi leviathan took a lengthy hiatus and then got off their ass to make another movie yielded... The Phantom Menace.

Yeah, I'm absolutely mortified now! :)

At the same time, I still have no idea whatsoever of what to expect. I mean, how revolutionary can Avatar be?

megladon8

08-31-2008, 08:24 PM

I'm starting to think this movie is going to be a colossal practical joke.

Dukefrukem

09-07-2008, 02:46 PM

Bigger than Titanic ? (http://www.edmontonsun.com/Entertainment/MovieNews/2008/09/04/6656591-sun.html)

THe last time we heard something as bold as this, it was for King Kong.

It makes Titanic look like a picnic," Cameron said recently during an interview from Los Angeles, where he is working furiously on the new film.

Even Cameron, 54, finds it hard to describe the hugely ambitious Avatar, which is being made in stereoscopic 3-D and combines live action and computer animation.

"It's simultaneously the most vexing and the most rewarding type of production that I've done yet," Cameron says of the project, due in theatres Dec. 18, 2009.

megladon8

09-08-2008, 08:50 AM

I'm still thinking this movie doesn't even exist.

I think it's the biggest internet rumor ever created.

Ezee E

09-08-2008, 10:34 AM

I'm still thinking this movie doesn't even exist.

I think it's the biggest internet rumor ever created.
Start believing.

MadMan

09-08-2008, 10:00 PM

Hmm the last time a sci fi leviathan took a lengthy hiatus and then got off their ass to make another movie yielded... The Phantom Menace.Cameron is a better director than Lucus. By a country mile at least.

megladon8

09-08-2008, 10:48 PM

Cameron is a better director than Lucus. By a country mile at least.

No I'd say their directorial skills are about par.

It's their writing where the big differences lay - Cameron is a bad writer of dialogue, but he looks like Woody Allen compared to Lucas.

Winston*

09-08-2008, 10:55 PM

No I'd say their directorial skills are about par.

On what criteria are you basing this view? Seems a strange position to take.

number8

09-08-2008, 11:36 PM

Lucas and Cameron? That's crazeytalks.

Ezee E

09-09-2008, 12:58 AM

It's already been said. I won't add more insult.

Dukefrukem

09-09-2008, 02:47 AM

No I'd say their directorial skills are about par.

It's their writing where the big differences lay - Cameron is a bad writer of dialogue, but he looks like Woody Allen compared to Lucas.

Are we talking about old Lucas or new Lucas? The dialog in all three Indy films (leaving out the 4th)> anything Cameron has done.

megladon8

09-09-2008, 03:15 AM

Are we talking about old Lucas or new Lucas? The dialog in all three Indy films (leaving out the 4th)> anything Cameron has done.

He didn't write those.

Morris Schæffer

09-09-2008, 10:42 AM

Cameron's writing is bad? Has he written all his movies? Man, I remember so much quotable stuff from most of his movies.

Grouchy

09-09-2008, 05:52 PM

Lucas was a promising director up to Star Wars. From then onwards, he became some sort of mogul, and when he came back to directing, his talent simply wasn't there anymore.

Cameron had a longer, more assured career. I'm confident he's the better director, even after his hiatus.

Skitch

09-09-2008, 09:19 PM

No I'd say their directorial skills are about par.

Wha?

Morris Schæffer

02-11-2009, 04:57 PM

megladon8

02-11-2009, 07:13 PM

I still don't think this movie really exists.

Ivan Drago

02-11-2009, 07:17 PM

I still don't think this movie really exists.

Neither do I.

I will believe this movie is coming out when I see a trailer.

Dukefrukem

02-11-2009, 08:19 PM

Some random Avatar morsels to fuel the belief that it will be the greatest movie of all time!

And it has Michelle Rodriguez!

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-james-cameron-talks-avatar/page:1

Some of that article is crazy.

"The CGI is photorealistic – it’s impossible to tell the difference between effects and location footage."

I'll believe THAT when i see it. Photorealistic maybe, but not VIDEOrealisitc. Put that shit in motion and you could probably tell the difference.

I'm still very excited for this movie.

Steven Soderbergh: “Yeah, I went to the set. I can tell you that shit was mindblowing. The shit I saw was crazy. Like, craaaazy.I I think it’s gonna be gigantic. It’s gonna be another one of those benchmarks. There’s gonna be Before that movie and After.”

number8

02-11-2009, 10:03 PM

Fuckin' A.

D_Davis

02-11-2009, 10:25 PM

I hope they digitally enhance Michelle Rodriguez's scowl.

Pop Trash

02-14-2009, 01:05 AM

Steven Soderbergh: “Yeah, I went to the set. I can tell you that shit was mindblowing. The shit I saw was crazy. Like, craaaazy.I I think it’s gonna be gigantic. It’s gonna be another one of those benchmarks. There’s gonna be Before that movie and After.”
I was skeptical about all the hype till I read that. Soderbergh has a pretty analytical/critical way of thinking so I don't think he's bullshitting that statement.

Pop Trash

02-14-2009, 01:07 AM

Ezee E

04-07-2009, 04:27 AM

Laz Alonso: Unfortunately, I can’t say anything because that was part of what we signed. None of us are allowed to talk at all about the script or what the story is about. All I can say is that the technology is something that no one has ever seen or used before. We were being filmed by 197 cameras, simultaneously, in real time. It was something that took two and a half years to do, and when you see it this December, you’re going to know why it took that long. It is just unrivaled by anything that my eyes have ever seen in cinema. It blew me away, when I saw some of the finished scenes.

:eek:

Skitch

04-07-2009, 11:07 AM

197?!?!?!!

D_Davis

04-07-2009, 02:21 PM

Most of the movies on my top 100 were probably filmed with maybe five, at most, cameras.

This one uses 197, so obviously it will be much, much better than anything I've ever seen.

[ETM]

04-07-2009, 04:21 PM

Sarcasm makes baby Spaghetti Monster cry.

Wryan

04-07-2009, 04:33 PM

;150609']Sarcasm makes baby Spaghetti Monster cry.

...and Aunt Spaghetti Cat wail?

D_Davis

04-07-2009, 06:21 PM

The next time I record a song, rather than using 5 mics, I'm going to use 197 mics. Man, that song is going to be amazing.

Kurosawa Fan

04-07-2009, 06:23 PM

The next time I record a song, rather than using 5 mics, I'm going to use 197 mics. Man, that song is going to be amazing.

I bet I'll be able to actually see the song.

Sycophant

04-07-2009, 06:25 PM

Jokes about lol197cameraslol aside, I'm really curious as to what the hell this is going to look like.

Grouchy

04-07-2009, 06:33 PM

I have no idea what the hell this is all about.

Enter the 197 cameras. I'm even more confused now. My head hurts.

MadMan

04-07-2009, 06:40 PM

This could end up being the greatest thing ever, or be a disaster along the lines of Heaven's Gate. In other words, give me a goddamn trailer, ASAP.

D_Davis

04-07-2009, 06:44 PM

I bet I'll be able to actually see the song.

It's gonna be wild man.

Ezee E

04-07-2009, 06:46 PM

When's the next 3D movie? Up?

I'd predict then.

Mysterious Dude

04-07-2009, 06:55 PM

If this is really going to be the future of cinema, 197 cameras doesn't sound very practical.

D_Davis

04-07-2009, 07:05 PM

If this is really going to be the future of cinema, 197 cameras doesn't sound very practical.

I'm waiting for the day when a small-budget indie film will only use 100 cameras.

I think it's about time we raised the barrier to entry - it's gotten too cheap and easy for people to make films now.

Ezee E

04-07-2009, 07:09 PM

Cameras are so cheap these days. I'm pretty sure Cameron could've used more.

But you know, the economy these days.

Qrazy

04-07-2009, 08:31 PM

I'm waiting for the day when a small-budget indie film will only use 100 cameras.

I think it's about time we raised the barrier to entry - it's gotten too cheap and easy for people to make films now.

I know you're joking around but I'm pretty sure the use of all those cameras was in order to render the 3D world Cameron's trying to create, not as a lazy approach to coverage. Yes 'more cameras' doesn't equate to 'better cinema' but it may equate to 'better realized 3D cinema' (on a purely visual/image capture level).

[ETM]

04-07-2009, 09:32 PM

That's what I was thinking. The whole stage has to be rigged with all those cameras to capture the full range of 3D motion and allow for numerous angles in post production.

Sycophant

04-07-2009, 10:53 PM

Davis, I thought you liked technological progress and disliked kneejerk reactions?

D_Davis

04-07-2009, 11:18 PM

Davis, I thought you liked technological progress and disliked kneejerk reactions?

I like story in SF above all, and so far I haven't heard about anything but the technological aspects behind this flick.

I'm mostly just joking around, but it's getting to be ridiculous.

It's like Spinal Tap talking about their amps going to 11.

Or like Lucas bragging about how 90% of the new Star Wars films were shot on green screen.

Sure, 197 cameras is impressive (197 of a lot of things is impressive), but all the technical wizardry in the world won't save a poorly conceived SF story, and I'm beginning to think there isn't much to talk about in that department.

Sycophant

04-07-2009, 11:27 PM

I hope it's a good movie. The marketing strategy has thus far been to keep what it's "about" under wraps until much later along. Until then, I find details like these interesting. Obviously, this is something Cameron is passionate about making and believes that these 197 cameras are going to be very much in service of this project.

I don't know what that's going to be. I'm still pretty unconvinced of the promise of 3D. But Cameron obviously believes in whatever he's got cooking. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Sycophant

04-07-2009, 11:38 PM

But then I don't have an almost familial connection to SF that requires me to defend and pray for the advancement of the genre, so we're coming at this from different places.

[ETM]

04-07-2009, 11:39 PM

Avatar's story is something I'd put under "You have to see this, words aren't enough" category and since Cameron has always had it in mind as the showcase for the technology he is pioneering, I'm willing to trust him on it. The premise sounds intriguing enough, but the technical aspect is what will drive people to cinemas in this case.

lovejuice

04-07-2009, 11:40 PM

soon if we don't see anything freaking thing at all, this hype will crumble like a house of card.

oh, jim, why do you torment me so? all i want is a freaking movie from you, and you have to go overboard revolutionizing cinema.

DavidSeven

04-07-2009, 11:46 PM

This isn't a film; it's an amusement park ride.

-- Coming soon to an RT blurb near you.

Watashi

04-07-2009, 11:49 PM

Avatar has a story:

In a distant future, humanity discovers the planet 'Alpha Centauri B-4', and for those scientists and astronauts who've traversed the gulf between neighboring suns and arrived on its alien soil know it as 'Pandora'. A world filled with an incredible diversity of beautiful and deadly ammonia-breathing lifeforms. Its also a world that harbors treasures and resources almost beyond price. But just as the original Pandora's Box wrought devastation on those who would use it for their own gain, so too this world may destroy not just the Pandorans home, but ours as well.

Avatar is the story of a wounded ex-marine, thrust unwillingly into an effort to settle and exploit an exotic planet rich in bio-diversity, who eventually crosses over to lead the indigenous race in a battle for survival.

It's just the techno stuff that's being under wraps.

Raiders

04-07-2009, 11:51 PM

I don't know why content and form are being assumed to be separate as though the technology won't directly link into the film's story (which, from what I understand of the film's idea of "avatar," is precisely the case).

Cameron always goes overboard. I thought his excess was part of his charm.

DavidSeven

04-08-2009, 12:10 AM

Based on that premise, I would predict mega-box-office-disaster. 3D or not.

Watashi

04-08-2009, 12:12 AM

Based on that premise, I would predict mega-box-office-disaster. 3D or not.
Yeah, Fox needs to start marketing this thing now.

My friends don't know anything about this film.

Sycophant

04-08-2009, 12:15 AM

Isn't it not coming out for another 8 months? Wouldn't it make more sense to hold off until at leat the summer blockbuster season hits?

Or am I missing some sarcasm there?

[ETM]

04-08-2009, 12:17 AM

Based on that premise, I would predict mega-box-office-disaster. 3D or not.

I have actually had the notion of an epic "reverse alien invasion" Sci-Fi film in my mind ever since I was a kid. This is the stuff I was always longing to see. The saddest thing about the modern world is that most people would rather watch Survivor. It kills me.

Sycophant

04-08-2009, 12:18 AM

;150763']I have actually had the notion of an epic "reverse alien invasion" Sci-Fi film in my mind ever since I was a kid.

Aren't there basically three movies like that coming out this year?

[ETM]

04-08-2009, 12:21 AM

Aren't there basically three movies like that coming out this year?

Which ones?

megladon8

04-08-2009, 12:28 AM

Sycophant

04-08-2009, 12:31 AM

;150766']Which ones?

Planet 51 and Terra.

Sycophant

04-08-2009, 12:34 AM

Okay, only one of those looks to be epic (Terra), but that there are 3 films this year that seem to be about humans as invading alien forces is pretty crazy.

Not sure it's really a coincidence, though, either.

megladon8

04-08-2009, 12:40 AM

This isn't that uncommon, though. I always think back to the mid-to-late '90s when we would have two or three movies centered around the same type of matural disaster come out the same year, or within a year's time.

I find it weirder that there are two big studio releases called Nine coming out within 6 weeks of each other this fall.

[ETM]

04-08-2009, 12:50 AM

Isn't Terra the animated film that has been around since 2007?

I was thinking more in terms of a short story I once read, where a powerful military force from Earth lands on an alien planet, inhabited by harmless stone-age aliens and ludicrously rich with resources. They keep wondering about the natives, and why the planet is intact while they deploy the machinery and land the ships, setting camps and breaking the ground for full fledged invasion. Until their equipment starts breaking down, slowly. Then everything else. Turns out something in the planet's atmosphere dissolves metallic alloys, from lighters to spaceships - everything turns to dust.

It has stuck with me as something that's not that often explored on that scale, and Cameron seems to tapped into that exact vision of mine for Avatar.

Ezee E

04-08-2009, 12:57 AM

A friend of mine worked in Los Angeles and had a meeting with James Cameron and several others.

Cameron was late, and his assistant showed up, and said, "And now the man with the same initials as Jesus Christ is here."

Doors opened and there was James Cameron.

No joke.

megladon8

04-08-2009, 12:59 AM

[ETM]

04-08-2009, 01:01 AM

This is the kind of stuff that makes me hate famous people.

Or their assistants? I'm picturing Jonathan from 30 Rock.

Sycophant

04-08-2009, 01:01 AM

I find that endearing.

Spun Lepton

04-08-2009, 01:05 AM

Based on that premise, I would predict mega-box-office-disaster. 3D or not.

If they throw enough "WOW" visuals into the trailer, it's at least going to dominate on opening weekend. And I'm sorry, but if the visuals are amazing (and it sounds like they will be), as long as the story has a beginning, middle, and end ... it'll probably do all right at the box office.

[ETM]

04-08-2009, 01:12 AM

My best guess is they're not satisfied with the number of 3D equipped theaters yet. When that trailer hits, it's gonna be huge. Cameron doesn't have to convince legions of fans AND random viewers about his vision, like the poor sods pouring the cash into the Star Trek campaign. He needs a full trailer, in 3D, on as many screens as possible... if it's as good as he hopes, it'll blow us away. If he's wrong, well - not much anyone can do about it right now.

Qrazy

04-08-2009, 01:49 AM

I don't see what's "box office disaster" about that, but OK.

I think the subject matter sounds like it could be quite poignant, since we're practically on the edge of being able to explore and colonize other worlds.

Well we're practically on the edge of that for the moon and Mars, not really anything else for a while.

Qrazy

04-08-2009, 01:50 AM

;150780']Or their assistants? I'm picturing Jonathan from 30 Rock.

Or that guy in Thank You for Smoking.

DavidSeven

04-08-2009, 01:50 AM

If they throw enough "WOW" visuals into the trailer, it's at least going to dominate on opening weekend. And I'm sorry, but if the visuals are amazing (and it sounds like they will be), as long as the story has a beginning, middle, and end ... it'll probably do all right at the box office.

...said the producers of Titan A.E. and Final Fantasy.

Spun Lepton

04-08-2009, 02:16 AM

...said the producers of Titan A.E. and Final Fantasy.

...said George Lucas.
...said Michael Bay.
...said Roland Emmerich.

Dukefrukem

04-08-2009, 02:17 AM

hahahahahahahahah

megladon8

04-08-2009, 02:19 AM

I liked both Titan A.E. and Final Fantasy.

Spun Lepton

04-08-2009, 02:20 AM

I liked both Titan A.E. and Final Fantasy.

It's okay, Meg, we still like you. :P

Ezee E

04-08-2009, 02:24 AM

Final Fantasy and Titan A.E. had amazing visuals?

Raiders

04-08-2009, 02:27 AM

Final Fantasy certainly was supposed to. It pioneered "lifelike", or photo-realistic, computer animated films. It was marketed as such.

DavidSeven

04-08-2009, 02:28 AM

...said George Lucas.
...said Michael Bay.
...said Roland Emmerich.

Well, I think my examples work better as analogies. Titan and FF tried to revolutionize the world of 3D in film (albeit animation) and premised their films on inaccessible sci-fi narratives. The guys you cited make populist, simplistic, disposable sci-fi through conventional, big budgeted means.

Speaking of which, why does every film that tries to revolutionize 3D filmmaking have to be about on an alien invasion 50-100 years in the future?

[ETM]

04-08-2009, 02:29 AM

Final Fantasy certainly was supposed to. It pioneered "lifelike", or photo-realistic, computer animated films. It was marketed as such.

Well, you gotta hand it to them, since it was a milestone in the end - it showcased precisely how NOT to do it, and which mistakes to avoid. Someone had to bite the bullet and by god they did it.

Spun Lepton

04-08-2009, 02:45 AM

The guys you cited make populist, simplistic, disposable sci-fi through conventional, big budgeted means.

Last I checked, so does Cameron. Unlike the three I listed, though, he can actually tell a coherent and engaging story. He also already has a large fanbase and an impressive list of films to his name. Hell, his name alone will put butts into seats.

But, regardless of all this, we'll have to wait to see what happens. I suspect they're going to advertise the hell out of it, "From the director of Titanic, Terminator's 1 and 2, and Aliens comes ..." etc. etc.

Pretty sure this is going to make a dent on the industry. We'll see. Part of me hopes I'm right, part of me worries how much more empty Hollywood films will become if Cameron's technology becomes the norm. We'll see.

Mysterious Dude

04-08-2009, 03:57 AM

I feel like I've seen this kind of hype before. People seem to be expecting some kind of transcendent experience, and I think they're likely going to be disappointed.

Qrazy

04-08-2009, 04:01 AM

I feel like I've seen this kind of hype before. People seem to be expecting some kind of transcendent experience, and I think they're likely going to be disappointed.

Matrix Sequels?

Mysterious Dude

04-08-2009, 04:21 AM

Matrix Sequels?
Actually, the movie that keeps coming to my mind is Youth Without Youth. I know the circumstances were different, but I remember people saying it was going to be so different than anything we'd ever seen, and then... no one liked it.

Qrazy

04-08-2009, 04:24 AM

B-side

04-08-2009, 10:31 AM

Actually, the movie that keeps coming to my mind is Youth Without Youth. I know the circumstances were different, but I remember people saying it was going to be so different than anything we'd ever seen, and then... no one liked it.

Youth Without Youth was really good, I thought. Tetro is Coppola going back to form, apparently. He says it's going to be akin to a Greek tragedy.

Skitch

04-08-2009, 12:02 PM

Based on that premise, I would predict mega-box-office-disaster. 3D or not.

Based on the director of said premise I would predict record-smashing success, ending in a technology revolution.

Skitch

04-08-2009, 12:04 PM

...said George Lucas.
...said Michael Bay.
...said Roland Emmerich.

While not critical darlings, their box offices speak volumes...except for maybe Roland, post ID4.

Qrazy

04-08-2009, 05:37 PM

While not critical darlings, their box offices speak volumes...except for maybe Roland, post ID4.

That was his point...?

Grouchy

04-08-2009, 06:28 PM

Tetro will blow your mind though.
You guys knew the story about Tetro?

Coppola intended it to be the opening film of a production company he was opening in Argentina. The movie started filming in San Telmo, Buenos Aires, the neighborhood where I study. I even saw Vincent Gallo once eating in a corner.

And then the mess started. A friend's sister who worked as production assistant said there was minimum security throughout the filming and crap working conditions. Then three computers were stolen from the production company's building, one of them containing a rough cut of the film. Meanwhile, the thing went quickly over-budget in true Coppola fashion. And then, the cherry at the top of the ice cream: accusations (and proof) surfaced that Coppola was underpaying most of the local crew, who didn't even have the legal paperwork in order. Legal mess ensues. Coppola retires to finish the movie somewhere else.

I don't even know where it's supposed to be filming now. The production company was obviously aborted.

Qrazy

04-08-2009, 06:44 PM

You guys knew the story about Tetro?

Coppola intended it to be the opening film of a production company he was opening in Argentina. The movie started filming in San Telmo, Buenos Aires, the neighborhood where I study. I even saw Vincent Gallo once eating in a corner.

And then the mess started. A friend's sister who worked as production assistant said there was minimum security throughout the filming and crap working conditions. Then three computers were stolen from the production company's building, one of them containing a rough cut of the film. Meanwhile, the thing went quickly over-budget in true Coppola fashion. And then, the cherry at the top of the ice cream: accusations (and proof) surfaced that Coppola was underpaying most of the local crew, who didn't even have the legal paperwork in order. Legal mess ensues. Coppola retires to finish the movie somewhere else.

I don't even know where it's supposed to be filming now. The production company was obviously aborted.

No didn't hear about that, that's terrible though... just to clarify I was being sarcastic before.

Mysterious Dude

04-08-2009, 07:32 PM

Youth Without Youth was really good, I thought.That's beside the point. Did it change the world?

Expecting a movie to be so tremendous is begging for disappointment.

Skitch

04-08-2009, 07:34 PM

That was his point...?

Uh...I guess I took that the wrong way. Stupid skim reading!

*punches self in face*

lovejuice

04-08-2009, 07:36 PM

Actually, the movie that keeps coming to my mind is Youth Without Youth. I know the circumstances were different, but I remember people saying it was going to be so different than anything we'd ever seen, and then... no one liked it.

i sincerely don't get that impression at all. i think, apart from coppola's return to directing movies, it's just another movie. with some unconventional narrative structure, at most.

Grouchy

04-08-2009, 07:57 PM

No didn't hear about that, that's terrible though... just to clarify I was being sarcastic before.
Yeah, I know. I just felt like mentioning it because it was a big deal while the filming was taking place here, but I never saw it brought up in any international press article.

Qrazy

04-08-2009, 07:58 PM

Yeah, I know. I just felt like mentioning it because it was a big deal while the filming was taking place here, but I never saw it brought up in any international press article.

Yeah that's pretty unacceptable... as is Slumdog's treatment of the kids involved in the production... still I do hope Tetro turns out to be good despite everything.

Mysterious Dude

04-08-2009, 08:10 PM

i sincerely don't get that impression at all. i think, apart from coppola's return to directing movies, it's just another movie. with some unconventional narrative structure, at most.
So basically, it didn't live up to the hype. Which is my point.

Ezee E

04-08-2009, 10:01 PM

Heard about Tetro's computers being stolen, but nothing else.

Raiders

04-08-2009, 10:22 PM

So basically, it didn't live up to the hype. Which is my point.

I think the bigger point is I don't recall this hype you are talking about. I only remember some murmers because it was Coppola's first film in 10 years. Nothing about it being a new frontier in cinema.

Sycophant

04-08-2009, 10:30 PM

Spun Lepton

04-08-2009, 10:53 PM

I suspect this is Hollywood's running formula:

We have this new 3D technology. Very expensive 3D technology. We need to engineer its success, because we need a reason for people to start going back to the theater. We have a projected release date of 2010 for Avatar. Let's start releasing "regular 3D" movies for a couple years, build up the public's tolerance/excitement for 3D. (Especially the kids!!) Build up hype for Avatar, the "new 3D." Pique people's interest in the technology, build some anticipation for the movie itself, "From the director of Titanic comes a WHOLE NEW EXPERIENCE blah blah blah." Upon its box-office success, hold the profits up as a demonstration of "People want this new 3D techology!" Herald in a new era of 3D.

Whether it actually is "the future" or just a flash in the pan will remain to be seen.

After reading how many cameras they used to make it, though ... I'm now wondering if it's just going to be, like, a shit ton of slow-motion Matrix effects mixed with 3D technology. That will be the very definition of "not living up to the hype." :lol:

megladon8

04-08-2009, 10:58 PM

From what I understand from some stuff I read several months ago, this new 3D technology gives the audience the ability to change their perspective by moving their head, and that's why all the cameras are needed.

It means you can look around chracters and objects.

So basically, it's a hologram.

Spun Lepton

04-08-2009, 11:00 PM

megladon8

04-08-2009, 11:04 PM

Well now ... THAT will fucking blow my mind. If true. How could something like that even work, though?

I have absolutely no idea, it's just what I read. It was one of the tech guys linked to the film talking about how it would revolutionize the way we see movies - which is pretty much meaningless now, since everyone associated with the movie has been saying this.

I don't even know how a theatre could project something like that. It would mean several different layers of imagery. It seems to me that they would have to build a specially equipped theatre just to show the movie.

Honestly, I'm more interested in seeing this supposedly photorealistic CGI than anything else.

[ETM]

04-08-2009, 11:19 PM

I don't even know how a theatre could project something like that. It would mean several different layers of imagery. It seems to me that they would have to build a specially equipped theatre just to show the movie.

Um... hello? It's what this is all about. Cameron has pushed for theatre conversion and his technology as the new standard in order to have enough venues for Avatar to open. It's supposed to work with high framerate projection, something like 124 frames per second, with differently polarized frames. The special glasses allow you to view it in 3D, without the problems of the older techniques.

Skitch

04-08-2009, 11:28 PM

Just wanted to pop in and clarify that I'm not "hyped up" or "buying the hype" or stoked or jazzed or anything. I'm just curious to see what this is going to be. I don't actually really detect a lot of frothing anticipation for the film in this thread, so much as curiosity to how exactly this is going to play out technically, and what it might be bringing to the table.

Yeah, calm down already. Sheesh.

:)

Seriously though, I am frothing in anticipation. I think I'm doing pretty good at reeling it in here, though. Maybe not.

transmogrifier

04-09-2009, 07:28 AM

I wonder if James Cameron is ever going to get around to just making a movie again.

Morris Schæffer

04-09-2009, 10:41 AM

"A film by James Cameron" is all I need to bring on the froth.

Morris Schæffer

04-09-2009, 10:46 AM

;150993']Um... hello? It's what this is all about. Cameron has pushed for theatre conversion and his technology as the new standard in order to have enough venues for Avatar to open. It's supposed to work with high framerate projection, something like 124 frames per second, with differently polarized frames. The special glasses allow you to view it in 3D, without the problems of the older techniques.

But then Dec. 2009 feels like it's way too soon because here in Belgium dick all is being converted. :)

Dukefrukem

04-10-2009, 12:01 AM

"A film by James Cameron" is all I need to bring on the froth.

exactly. who gives a shit about anything else. Christ i even went to all his boring Titanic underwater bullshit!!

lovejuice

04-10-2009, 05:43 AM

exactly. who gives a shit about anything else. Christ i even went to all his boring Titanic underwater bullshit!!
yeah, i always wonder. are they good?

transmogrifier

04-10-2009, 06:24 AM

I just don't see the point of "photo-realistic CGI", nor the desperate clamour to attain it. We are all aware that films are not real, they present a fictional world, and it is the story and the characters that sell it, not whether the pixels can mimic real life. Write a good script and learn to use the camera to create meaning, and you could perform it in front of a goddamn stained sheet and it'd still be engrossing.

I also don't see the point of hologramic (?) film where we get to look around objects in the film. When I'm out in real life, there are a shitload of things that get in my way, and it's nothing I'd actually go out of my way to pay for and repeat in a darkened room. If I wanted to go searching around an environment, I'd rent a friggin video game. When I watch a film, I want a voice to speak to me clearly and with artisitic (and/or narrative) confidence, not some technodweeb with no artistic pulse dropping me into a slavish spectacle and expecting me to wander around, satisfied with nothing more than having the fake power of manipulating the perspective a "movie"

In summary, I really, truly hope this "film" crashes and burns. It's not moviemaking - it's an egotistical fool trying to elevate technology above art and essentially hoping that audiences will discard their genuine appreciation of cinema in favor of the cult of technological novelty.

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 06:39 AM

transmogrifier

04-10-2009, 06:51 AM

So you hope a film that you haven't seen fails because it's trying to push some boundaries. It's not the pictures that got small.

Thanks for trying to Reader's Digest my thoughts, but I hope people read my complete post rather than your rather silly oversimplification,

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 07:07 AM

Thanks for trying to Reader's Digest my thoughts, but I hope people read my complete post rather than your rather silly oversimplification,

In summary, I really, truly hope this "film" crashes and burns. It's not moviemaking.

If you're trying to communicate something other than what you said, by all means do so. I didn't oversimplify your post, I put it into perspective. You do not feel that photo-realistic CGI and holograms are milestones worth reaching. That is your prerogative. It just strikes me as silly to wish ill upon a film that you haven't even seen because it is trying to break new ground (and presumably tell an interesting story as well).

OK, let's take the CGI first. If it was just some random new blockbuster with run of the mill CGI would you care? Would you wish it failure? Frankly if directors are going to continually employ CGI to tell their stories I would be much happier if it became photorealistic. Right now CGI pails in comparison to actual stuntwork. If it were photorealistic however maybe I wouldn't mind it's use as much. Photorealism does not entail 'reality'. This is still a fantasy with fantasy creatures. Photorealism entails seemingly real computer generated lifeforms/imagery. Of course story comes first but sharpening ones tools to communicate said story doesn't hurt either. Dull tools or mediocre CGI can detract from the experience of an otherwise solid film.

In terms of holographic imagery I share your concerns to a greater degree. The way cinematic stories are told it would be a hindrance to have to look around a character to discover a vital narrative clue. However I think we should see what is actually being done in the film before we prejudge it. I also think that holographic experiences and regular cinema could co-exist together. I am fully ready to embrace the next evolution of visual communication. I would love to experience an immersive holographic world although I'm not sure narrative cinema as we know it is the best medium for such a world.

Ultimately though your comments don't sound that different to me than the outcry of certain viewers, critics and historians when the sound age first entered cinema. You don't know if Cameron is favoring technology over art. He may just be using technology to do new things with art. I would agree with such a criticism for Lucas, we'll have to see in terms of Avatar.

transmogrifier

04-10-2009, 07:22 AM

See, you did find some of my arguments in my original post! I knew I had put some in there somewhere.

Essentially, I have a view about what constitutes cinema, and I think James Cameron's efforts are against the whole spirit of the medium. Feel free to disagree with me if you like (that's what I love about discussion, the disagreement), but trying to claim I'm against the film simply because it is trying something new is disingenuous and lazy.

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 07:25 AM

transmogrifier

04-10-2009, 07:32 AM

OK I could have added 'push some boundaries... which you don't feel are important ones', but I thought that was implied.

Not really, especially as the simplification appeared to be the crux of your argument.

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 07:36 AM

Not really, especially as the simplification appeared to be the crux of your argument.

Meh, I wasn't trying to argue the point, hence the single sentence. I thought the above amendment was implied, but I guess you're right that it wasn't.

transmogrifier

04-10-2009, 07:55 AM

number8

04-10-2009, 08:51 AM

transmogrifier

04-10-2009, 09:25 AM

Yeah, but that's saying that those things are more important in film than its visuals.

Yeah, but that's saying that visuals from new, expensive cameras = better movie.

number8

04-10-2009, 09:42 AM

Yeah, but that's saying that visuals from new, expensive cameras = better movie.
Who's saying that?

transmogrifier

04-10-2009, 10:29 AM

Just following the chain of reasoning.

I complain that Cameron is obsessed with advances in technology and should be focusing on screenplay, acting and the thematic point of the whole enterprise (as three examples; there could have been more).

You say that this means I think visuals aren't important. In other words, you're equating Cameron's advances in technology with visuals, because I haven't referred to the look of the film one way or the other. Now by making this connection, there is the implication that the quality of the visuals (and thus the film, because all other things being equal, an improvement in the visuals would equate to a better movie) rests on the technological innovation. Otherwise, why even bring it up in the first place as an argument against me? If the connection doesn't exist, why would my dislike of his attitude towards filmmaking mean that I don't think visuals are important? To me, visuals are much more than the type of camera that you use. My whole argument is that, from Cameron's own interviews, he has an obsession with the camera specs, and no so much about what he's actually going to do with them.

At least, that's how it read your line of reasoning. I may be wrong.

[ETM]

04-10-2009, 11:23 AM

I complain that Cameron is obsessed with advances in technology and should be focusing on screenplay, acting and the thematic point of the whole enterprise (as three examples; there could have been more).

...

Otherwise, why even bring it up in the first place as an argument against me? If the connection doesn't exist, why would my dislike of his attitude towards filmmaking mean that I don't think visuals are important? To me, visuals are much more than the type of camera that you use. My whole argument is that, from Cameron's own interviews, he has an obsession with the camera specs, and no so much about what he's actually going to do with them.

You're making an argument that can't sound like anything but malevolent about something no one has seen yet. Cameron's films have always been enjoyed by most not because of his technological advances, but because of the way they meld with the "true elements of the medium". It's not like his opus thus far is worthless, so judging his unseen work in the way you do doesn't raise questions about him, but your own personal agenda against his work, it would seem.

Personally, I admire his courage and the extent to which he DID manage to pull off anything he has ever done, which required significant technological advances. There is no way Abyss, T2 and Titanic, for example, could have been made without it. As of now, we have no right to claim he is using Avatar to push the technology, instead of the other way round. I guess this is a special case, because he's basically moving the entire medium to uncharted ground, but there is still no way he'd dare make an empty tech showcase, not the Cameron we've seen before.

number8

04-10-2009, 11:44 AM

I complain that Cameron is obsessed with advances in technology and should be focusing on screenplay, acting and the thematic point of the whole enterprise (as three examples; there could have been more).

You say that this means I think visuals aren't important. In other words, you're equating Cameron's advances in technology with visuals, because I haven't referred to the look of the film one way or the other.

No, I was saying that it's curious that you chose to assert the importance of those three elements over the craft of visuals, which is clearly the whole reason why Cameron's developing the technology in the first place. Otherwise, why bother? He's done the same for many of his previous films (T2, Titanic, The Abyss), developing new tech to help him realize the visuals he want to convey. I remember a very big deal was made prior to Titanic's release over how awesome the underwater camera they invented for it was.

The dude came up with some pretty neat gadgets. Of course people are going to be curious, and of course he's going to talk about them. I don't see how that translates to him abandoning other aspects of filmmaking, and the way you made yourself sound is that you think Cameron should be talking about the story because it's more important, which is frankly absurd for a filmmaker.

[ETM]

04-10-2009, 11:49 AM

There's an echo in the room, and it ain't played by Dushku.:)

*rimshot*

transmogrifier

04-10-2009, 12:12 PM

No, I was saying that it's curious that you chose to assert the importance of those three elements over the craft of visuals, which is clearly the whole reason why Cameron's developing the technology in the first place.

But I didn't; this was your assumption. "Visuals" is a much more interesting, intricate concept than simply the technology used to capture them, yet this is what you have reduced my original argument (which was specifically targeted at the photorealistic CGI and the hologram crap) to.

You'll also notice that I actually said:

Anyway, I would really prefer Cameron to come out and wax lyrical about how he was after the most perfect script in the world, and how he and the actors were working together to create vivid, enthralling characters, and how he had so much to say in his movie etc, etc, etc.

Notice the etc, etc, etc? That means I had other examples of things Cameron could be talking about re: his next film that didn't make him out to be more of a second-hand car salesman than an artist.

So, it put it bluntly: photorealistic CGI and holographic cinema are silly ideas, and Cameron is silly to be so enamoured with them.

[ETM]

04-10-2009, 12:44 PM

So, it put it bluntly: photorealistic CGI and holographic cinema are silly ideas, and Cameron is silly to be so enamoured with them.

What if it's done right in Avatar? Would it cease to be a "silly idea" or are you simply on a crusade against anything that strays from your own vision of what constitutes cinema? Also, people still make non-color films when it is artistically appropriate. Why do you feel threatened by all this? Isn't it easier to, you know, let Cameron make his little movie, see it crash and burn and be done with it for good? Are you afraid it might just work?

Skitch

04-10-2009, 04:05 PM

Just following the chain of reasoning.

I think your chain is rusty, and tainted with madness.

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 04:58 PM

No, I was saying that it's curious that you chose to assert the importance of those three elements over the craft of visuals, which is clearly the whole reason why Cameron's developing the technology in the first place. Otherwise, why bother? He's done the same for many of his previous films (T2, Titanic, The Abyss), developing new tech to help him realize the visuals he want to convey. I remember a very big deal was made prior to Titanic's release over how awesome the underwater camera they invented for it was.

The dude came up with some pretty neat gadgets. Of course people are going to be curious, and of course he's going to talk about them. I don't see how that translates to him abandoning other aspects of filmmaking, and the way you made yourself sound is that you think Cameron should be talking about the story because it's more important, which is frankly absurd for a filmmaker.

Plus I don't even know how much Cameron has been talking about this stuff. I'm sure he's mentioned it some but mostly I've heard comments from actors, people who visited the set (Soderbergh) and other people (fans/critics) in relation to the technology being used.

D_Davis

04-10-2009, 05:32 PM

Anyway, I would really prefer Cameron to come out and wax lyrical about how he was after the most perfect script in the world, and how he and the actors were working together to create vivid, enthralling characters, and how he had so much to say in his movie etc, etc, etc. But know, it's all about the cameras, the pixel, kitting out theatres. Superficial bullshit basically.

Thank you.

I would love to hear about how amazing the SF concepts in the narrative are. I'd be way more excited to hear Cameron and the writer talking about how they are expanding and challenging the tropes and conventions of SF, but instead, from what I have heard thus far (which is very limited) it sounds like a typical space-marine/reverse-invasion story; as if we need another one of these...

People already erroneously equate SF with "tech," (even though it is more overtly concerned with humanity), and all this techno-babble about how the film is being made is only strengthening this stereotype.

Good SF is always about the characters and the narrative concepts - the tech is usually nothing but a MacGuffin, or a way to examine currents in modern society with a future-pointing lens.

All the tech in the world can't save a SF film with a flimsy narrative.

I am hoping against all that I am dead wrong. I'd love to see this film come out and blow my mind in both departments.

That would be awesome.

[ETM]

04-10-2009, 05:45 PM

All the tech in the world can't save a SF film with a flimsy narrative.

Overdone tech can diminish a flimsy narrative that might have worked otherwise, too.

This is just a case of entitlement and expectations. Cameron doesn't want to go into details. He wants people to SEE what he has been doing for years, WHEN it's done. Not the film itself, mind you, I'm talking about trailers and previews and demos and whatnot. We may feel there should have been something out there already, but this is far from unusual, and for a project of this magnitude quite necessary. Nobody is bawling over Avatar yet, nor the technology - it's kind of like the elephant in the room: it's looming, but we're doing our best not to think about it too much before time.

I've said it before - the overabundance of all kinds of advertising for ST is making me sick of it already, and I'm a fan. Avatar is always there, nagging, I want to know all these things just as you do, but I just don't demand them, here and now.

I am hoping against all that I am dead wrong. I'd love to see this film come out and blow my mind in both departments.

That would be awesome.

Indeed. My main two points here are: Cameron usually makes compelling films when he ventures into the unknown, and if it works this time, on all fronts, it's going to be magnificent.

Ezee E

04-10-2009, 07:24 PM

;151358']
Indeed. My main two points here are: Cameron usually makes compelling films when he ventures into the unknown, and if it works this time, on all fronts, it's going to be magnificent.

Hence why it's one of my most anticipated of the year. There isn't one movie of his that I don't like. And that includes True Lies.

transmogrifier

04-10-2009, 07:29 PM

;151331']What if it's done right in Avatar? Would it cease to be a "silly idea" or are you simply on a crusade against anything that strays from your own vision of what constitutes cinema? Also, people still make non-color films when it is artistically appropriate. Why do you feel threatened by all this? Isn't it easier to, you know, let Cameron make his little movie, see it crash and burn and be done with it for good? Are you afraid it might just work?

By that's essentially my point; even if it was done right, I don't see any benefit to the art of cinema at all.

And, surely you have your own vision of what constitutes cinema, right? Or does your mocking tone reveal the fact that your happy enough to sit there, indulging in the medium that you (apparently, seeing as you are here) love, but never, ever for a single second consider what you like, want, expect, crave from it? Because that would be sad.

Oh, and a single post at Match Cut =/ a crusade, just so you know. You may need to consult an encyclopedia on that.

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 07:33 PM

Hence why it's one of my most anticipated of the year. There isn't one movie of his that I don't like. And that includes True Lies.

Piranha Part II.

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 07:41 PM

By that's essentially my point; even if it was done right, I don't see any benefit to the art of cinema at all.

You haven't responded to my response concerning the CGI element.

In terms of holograms (I kind of doubt this film goes too far in that direction but...) while whether or not it's beneficial to the 'art of cinema' is questionable, whether or not it's beneficial to 'art in general' seems apparent to me. How could it not be? How could a new medium be a bad thing (although narrative storytelling may not be the correct medium for such a medium). It's the distinction between painting and sculpture in my eyes, each brings something different to the table. Imagine a fully immersive hologram that you could walk into and experience... a tropical jungle for instance. Wouldn't this be incredible in a museum? A way to experience a slice of the world and learn about it if one doesn't have the money or resources to be able to get there?

Anyway let's separate the notion of holograms from whatever it is Cameron is actually doing, which we don't fully know yet. So let's say highly realized 3D cinema instead. What is wrong with 3D cinema if it aids storytelling? Did you see Coraline? I found it to be a rather interesting experience. Although I'd still like to see 3D cinema which could bypass that pop-out book effect (intentional or not in the case of Coraline and similar films)... because then you just have a series of 2D layers and it almost draws attention to the lack of three dimensionality. It sounds like Cameron's film meshes the 2D planes together more effectively.

D_Davis

04-10-2009, 07:43 PM

See, I'm one of the not-so-hot on JC guys.

I only really love one of his films: Aliens.

The others I can do without, but I don't actively dislike them.

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 07:47 PM

See, I'm one of the not-so-hot on JC guys.

I only really love one of his films: Aliens.

The others I can do without, but I don't actively dislike them.

Aliens is my favorite too although I also like The Abyss quite a bit. I don't care all that much for True Lies, Titanic or even the original Terminator. I think I like T2 quite a lot but I saw it only once 10+ years ago. But either way I think photorealistic CGI would be a valuable cinematic tool and 3D technology just seems interesting to me although less so for the medium of cinema. I don't see the necessity for most films to become three dimensional although I think it would be interesting to see those that are.

transmogrifier

04-10-2009, 08:03 PM

You haven't responded to my response concerning the CGI element.

In terms of holograms (I kind of doubt this film goes too far in that direction but...) while whether or not it's beneficial to the 'art of cinema' is questionable, whether or not it's beneficial to 'art in general' seems apparent to me. How could it not be? How could a new medium be a bad thing (although narrative storytelling may not be the correct medium for such a medium). It's the distinction between painting and sculpture in my eyes, each brings something different to the table. Imagine a fully immersive hologram that you could walk into and experience... a tropical jungle for instance. Wouldn't this be incredible in a museum? A way to experience a slice of the world and learn about it if one doesn't have the money or resources to be able to get there?

Anyway let's separate the notion of holograms from whatever it is Cameron is actually doing, which we don't fully know yet. So let's say highly realized 3D cinema instead. What is wrong with 3D cinema if it aids storytelling? Did you see Coraline? I found it to be a rather interesting experience. Although I'd still like to see 3D cinema which could bypass that pop-out book effect (intentional or not in the case of Coraline and similar films)... because then you just have a series of 2D layers and it almost draws attention to the lack of three dimensionality. It sounds like Cameron's film meshes the 2D planes together more effectively.

Your first paragraph, you're not describing cinema at all, so I can agree with what you are saying, but still dislike its intended use in film.

The second paragraph, I'm okay with 3D technology, as it is just the other step in the progression of how a film is screened. But it is not the movie in and of itself, and Cameron's attitude seems to think it (and other technology) is.

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 08:06 PM

Your first paragraph, you're not describing cinema at all, so I can agree with what you are saying, but still dislike its intended use in film.

The second paragraph, I'm okay with 3D technology, as it is just the other step in the progression of how a film is screened. But it is not the movie in and of itself, and Cameron's attitude seems to think it (and other technology) is.

My first, first paragraph was in reference to my paragraph from last page about CGI. Agreed about the next paragraph.

Where are these Cameron quotes suggesting as much because I've mostly heard other people connected with the film say such things. When Cameron has it's usually in response to someone's question about the film's new technology.

megladon8

04-10-2009, 08:06 PM

James Cameron is a great filmmaker who needs to accept the fact that he can't write dialogue for shit.

The Terminator - 9
Aliens - 8.5
The Abyss - 10
Terminator 2: Judgment Day - 10
True Lies - 6
Titanic - 6.5

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 08:10 PM

James Cameron is a great filmmaker who needs to accept the fact that he can't write for shit.

The Terminator - 9
Aliens - 8.5
The Abyss - 10
Terminator 2: Judgment Day - 10
True Lies - 6
Titanic - 6.5

By write do you mean dialogue because he can certainly write interesting characters, scenarios and a compelling plot (for the most part). In terms of dialogue I think he has a few missteps but is usually relatively proficient. His dialogue in relation to similar genre offerings is relatively solid.

megladon8

04-10-2009, 08:13 PM

By write do you mean dialogue because he can certainly write interesting characters, scenarios and a compelling plot (for the most part). In terms of dialogue I think he has a few missteps but is usually relatively proficient. His dialogue in relation to similar genre offerings is relatively solid.

Yes, dialogue.

Really? You think his dialogue is solid?

It's one of the biggest detractors in his films, for me. It's one of the reasons I can't love Aliens as much as others.

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 08:33 PM

Yes, dialogue.

Really? You think his dialogue is solid?

It's one of the biggest detractors in his films, for me. It's one of the reasons I can't love Aliens as much as others.

Yeah I think Aliens has a fairly decent pulpy sci-fi script. Lines like game over man, game over... get away from her you bitch... etc... they're pulpy but memorable and compelling. To be honest I don't remember the script in sufficient detail to make a decent argument either way. I don't remember having major complaints though as I do with Lucas or Michael Bay films, lesser genre offerings, etc. What are some of the lines you dislike? What are some action films that you feel have better dialogue and/or what are some better action film writers.

megladon8

04-10-2009, 08:47 PM

Yeah I think Aliens has a fairly decent pulpy sci-fi script. Lines like game over man, game over... get away from her you bitch... etc... they're pulpy but memorable and compelling. To be honest I don't remember the script in sufficient detail to make a decent argument either way. I don't remember having major complaints though as I do with Lucas or Michael Bay films, lesser genre offerings, etc. What are some of the lines you dislike? What are some action films that you feel have better dialogue and/or what are some better action film writers.

If I had it my way John Sayles would write just about everything :lol:

But the lines you mentioned really bothered me, particularly the "Game over, man!" one. Ugh...I almost have to fast-forward at that part.

A lot of the bickering between the soldiers really bugs me, too. The stuff between the male and female soldiers (forget their names) who obviously want to bang each other's brains out...it all just had this horrible layer of cheese which I really felt detracted from the atmosphere of dread in the film.

Another piece of Cameron dialogue that bugs the hell out of me - the "love scene" in The Terminator about making pipe bombs. Laaaaaaaaaaaame.

Good action film writers? Tony Gilroy for one. The "Bourne" trilogy is one of the best written action series' of all time, because the dialogue and the action do not exist apart from each other. When characters stop for dialogue it feels like a natural progression of the plot, rather than "ok let's slow down here so we can get some exposition out of the way".

On top of that, the characters don't speak in pure exposition. The dialogue flows naturally and reveals information important to the plot without putting up a big sign that says "listen close! This stuff's important!"

number8

04-10-2009, 08:49 PM

“She’s got the most incredible body too and a pair of titties that make you wanna stand up and beg for buttermilk. Ass like a ten year old boy.”

[ETM]

04-10-2009, 09:07 PM

By that's essentially my point; even if it was done right, I don't see any benefit to the art of cinema at all.

I do. Wanna talk about it or are you content with considering your vision of what exactly "it" is going to be like the definitive interpretation?

And, surely you have your own vision of what constitutes cinema, right? Or does your mocking tone reveal the fact that your happy enough to sit there, indulging in the medium that you (apparently, seeing as you are here) love, but never, ever for a single second consider what you like, want, expect, crave from it? Because that would be sad.

Qrazy has made some valid points, but you guys are, in my mind, approaching this from the wrong end. It is not at all about what constitutes the medium, and what is or isn't art. It's not even about Avatar itself... it's about what can, and will, be done with the medium IF Cameron does indeed pull it off. Surely even the most conservative of cinematic afficionados can't feel threatened by new techniques. It can only lead to new kinds of approaches to the medium but I don't see why there shouldn't be holographic 3D films if it benefits the particular vision? Essentially, this is far from defense of the technique or its possibilities, I'm just saying that yes, I see potential for furthering the art form, and no, I don't know if Avatar will be any good as a film, but NO ONE does.

Oh, and a single post at Match Cut =/ a crusade, just so you know. You may need to consult an encyclopedia on that.

As with my "mocking tone", your own suggests something irrational at play, because no one can be so certain of anything they know nothing about unless there's a level of antagonism involved that is a priori, a firm belief that is essentially deeply personal and as such not applicable to... well, anything. Crusade is perhaps too strong of a word, but then again, I have no idea what you do in your free time. There might be an underground anti-Cameron or anti-Avatar movement that is secretly burning copies of T2 for all I know.;)

Qrazy

04-10-2009, 09:07 PM

If I had it my way John Sayles would write just about everything :lol:

But the lines you mentioned really bothered me, particularly the "Game over, man!" one. Ugh...I almost have to fast-forward at that part.

A lot of the bickering between the soldiers really bugs me, too. The stuff between the male and female soldiers (forget their names) who obviously want to bang each other's brains out...it all just had this horrible layer of cheese which I really felt detracted from the atmosphere of dread in the film.

Another piece of Cameron dialogue that bugs the hell out of me - the "love scene" in The Terminator about making pipe bombs. Laaaaaaaaaaaame.

Good action film writers? Tony Gilroy for one. The "Bourne" trilogy is one of the best written action series' of all time, because the dialogue and the action do not exist apart from each other. When characters stop for dialogue it feels like a natural progression of the plot, rather than "ok let's slow down here so we can get some exposition out of the way".

On top of that, the characters don't speak in pure exposition. The dialogue flows naturally and reveals information important to the plot without putting up a big sign that says "listen close! This stuff's important!"

Hrm, can't say I remember a single piece of dialogue from the Bourne films or a monologue that stuck out for me as particularly revealing. In terms of Sayles I've only seen Matewan and nothing from the script stuck out for me either. I'll get back to you once I watch Lone Star in the not too distant future.

In terms of Cameron I think of him in terms of Carpenter and other pulpy filmmakers. Do you dislike Carpenter's writing as well? I find these are directors who make the general action film screenplay chock full of one-liners actually work on a stylistic level. There are a few one-liners in Bourne and the new Batman's and they don't work nearly as well because of the gritty 'real' world the film is trying to create. There's a sharp contrast between the undefeatable Bourne and the construction of the world around him. It doesn't really work for me. I like that he can get hurt and that he's good at what he does, but he's almost too good at what he does. At a certain point his ability to get physically hurt no longer means anything because ultimately we know he'll be fine. I'm not a huge fan of the original Die Hard but it set a great standard (not followed by the sequels as effectively) of a hero who survives by the skin of his teeth.

You may be right about the delivery of exposition though in terms of Bourne vs. Aliens I don't really remember it being much of a problem in either but I suppose I'd have to rewatch them.

I agree with you about The Terminator love scene dialogue sucking.

[ETM]

04-10-2009, 09:12 PM

Good action film writers? Tony Gilroy for one. The "Bourne" trilogy is one of the best written action series' of all time, because the dialogue and the action do not exist apart from each other. When characters stop for dialogue it feels like a natural progression of the plot, rather than "ok let's slow down here so we can get some exposition out of the way".

You can't be comparing a straight on action series with tech-heavy sci-fi?:confused:

EDIT: Yeah, and what Qrazy said.

megladon8

04-10-2009, 09:28 PM

;151430']You can't be comparing a straight on action series with tech-heavy sci-fi?:confused:

EDIT: Yeah, and what Qrazy said.

Aliens is an action movie.

And I don't see how bad dialogue can be more acceptable because it's in "tech-heavy sci-fi" rather than "a straight on action series".

So yeah...in yo face. ;)

[ETM]

04-10-2009, 09:48 PM

Aliens is an action movie.

And I don't see how bad dialogue can be more acceptable because it's in "tech-heavy sci-fi" rather than "a straight on action series".

So yeah...in yo face. ;)

Um... you don't exactly have to explain what a car is for a car chase in Bourne. You know, stuff like that.

D_Davis

04-10-2009, 09:59 PM

I like the dialog in Aliens.

Sure, it's not natural sounding, but it has a unique rhythm to it, and it's mostly quotable...mostly.

Watashi

04-10-2009, 10:00 PM

Avatar could have a good script, ya know.

Spun Lepton

04-10-2009, 10:04 PM

I've always liked Cameron, despite the fact that I refused to see Titanic, and still refuse. Anybody that can take a ham like Schwartzenegger and get him to deliver his lines in a fairly belivable fashion has got to have some skills writing and directing.

Scar

04-10-2009, 11:23 PM

megladon8

04-11-2009, 12:34 AM

;151442']Um... you don't exactly have to explain what a car is for a car chase in Bourne. You know, stuff like that.

You can still make explanations flow better and feel like they exist naturally in the characters' interactions.

This is why writers are paid, and some are held in higher esteem than others.

Scar

04-11-2009, 12:41 AM

The dialogue in Aliens felt very natural to me.

number8

04-11-2009, 12:43 AM

I don't pay much attention to the dialogue in Aliens.

EvilShoe

04-11-2009, 09:12 AM

I just want to see footage of Avatar already.

Skitch

04-11-2009, 12:22 PM

I love the dialogue in Aliens.

"Watch those corners...WATCH THOSE CORNERS!"

"You ever get mistaken for a man, Vasquez?"
"No. Do you?"

"I like to keep this handy...for close encounters."

"...they come at night...mostly..."

Mysterious Dude

04-11-2009, 04:04 PM

- "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
- "Hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it."
- "They can bill me."

Ezee E

04-11-2009, 04:09 PM

Don't understand what's wrong with some of these quotes.

Grouchy

04-11-2009, 09:18 PM

The Aliens had the best lines.

lovejuice

04-11-2009, 10:29 PM

The Aliens had the best lines.
don't know. to me they just growl and hiss.

Qrazy

04-11-2009, 10:29 PM

don't know. to me they just growl and hiss.

Obviously you don't speak Alien.

Amnesiac

04-12-2009, 05:42 AM

James Cameron's Avatar remains cloaked in secrecy, but as of now you can get your Amazon.com order in for a bunch of spin-offs that are due to hit the market in November.

For the more technically and artistically minded, there's The Art of Avatar: James Cameron's Epic Adventure that promises a forward by Peter Jackson, and "over 100 exclusive full-color images including sketches, matte paintings, drawings, and film stills" that will shed light on " the imaginative vistas, unique landscapes, aerial battle scenes, bioluminescent nights, and fantastical creatures." So there's a spoiler alert for you -- Avatar will feature bioluminscent nights and aerial battle scenes!

The rest of the Avatar books seem to be geared toward children ages 9-12. Aspiring young filmmakers have Avatar: The Movie Scrapbook to look forward to, and if your kid loves Avatar but can't read, there's Avatar: The Reusable Sticker Book. If you want to lose yourself in the foreign world of the Na'vi rather than that of film making, there's Avatar: The Na'vi Quest.

So, the first signs of the marketing deluge have appeared, you have a few clues as to what kind of action the film might promise, and hints that Cameron will be keeping the film relatively family friendly. I mean, did The Abyss ever have a sticker book?

Source (http://www.cinematical.com/2009/04/11/avatar-books-are-up-for-pre-order/).

Morris Schæffer

04-12-2009, 07:49 PM

Aliens is an action movie.

That's debatable, but it certainly has lots of action.

The dialogue in Aliens felt very natural to me.

And it is. What's really great is that desperate and out-of-options marines are even more persuasive than the typically cocky kind we find in the beginning of the movie. It never felt stereotypical all the way through. These guys are aware of the bad shit they're in.

Dukefrukem

04-14-2009, 02:00 AM

Aliens is an action movie. There's no debate.

Amnesiac

04-25-2009, 08:13 PM

A new image:

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/avatar_screen-440x308.jpg

To my eye, the stylings are similar to Cameron’s own Aliens. I guess that’s no real surprise, and its definitely not a bad thing. I could speculate as to exactly what we are seeing here, but I think you’d probably do a better job with those guesses yourself and I look forward to reading your comments.

Marketsaw posted the image (it was scanned by one of their readers) along with some of the remaining on-set ones. As I did in my recent Lovely Bones post, Marketsaw are encouraging you to pick up a copy of the magazine for yourself by not including every image, nor every piece of information. The interview with Cameron inside the magazine is a good one, and well worth any fan’s time.

Sadly, it doesn’t look like an Avatar trailer is going to premiere any time soon, with the rumours of its appearance before Wolverine now being denied. Each of these new reveals could be tiding me over, but instead they’re just making me more hungry.

Source (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/25/our-first-look-at-the-world-of-avatar-and-it-looks-quite-like-aliens/#more-26068).

Dukefrukem

05-26-2009, 11:59 AM

new pic leaked

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1qPLMlz01yQ/ShryCzvN6uI/AAAAAAAADIU/UvUhQz1PMOA/s1600/ScreenHunter_01%2BMay.%2B25%2B 09.00.jpg

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41178

Ivan Drago

05-28-2009, 03:44 AM

Spun Lepton

05-28-2009, 04:10 AM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1qPLMlz01yQ/ShryCzvN6uI/AAAAAAAADIU/UvUhQz1PMOA/s1600/ScreenHunter_01%2BMay.%2B25%2B 09.00.jpg

A robot's crotch?

Dukefrukem

05-28-2009, 02:34 PM

I'm curious as to when a trailer for this comes out. After Up, what other 3D movies are coming out this year? A Christmas Carol?

EDIT: Hmm, Ice Age 3, G-Force, Final Destination 3D...Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs?

Aint it Cool News says there will be a teaser trailer in Transformers.

A robot's crotch?

that's what it looks like. And a foot.

Dukefrukem

05-28-2009, 04:11 PM

Shit look at this production art (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41217)

[ETM]

05-28-2009, 04:25 PM

All this mech talk is disappointing... I thought it was supposed to be biomechs? Like large indigenous beasts controlled by mind?

number8

05-28-2009, 11:38 PM

;167730']All this mech talk is disappointing... I thought it was supposed to be biomechs? Like large indigenous beasts controlled by mind?

Why not both?

[ETM]

05-29-2009, 09:07 AM

Why not both?

Of course. We know nothing of the story yet. My guess is humans come with robots, natives use beasts (like those winged ones up there in the second image).

Dukefrukem

06-01-2009, 12:28 PM

another interview with Cameron

- Cameron never thought he’d shoot a new movie in 1.85 ratio, but he loves the way 3D looks in that ratio, so audiences seeing the film in 3D will get a 1.78 presentation versus audiences who see the film in scope (widescreen) in 2D.

- He seemed unusually humble and said that “Avatar” may not make film history, but there are a few shots in the film that he knows for certain will be quite memorable, saying that he has his crew just got something back from the lab that made them say, “what the fuck?” (further fueling the “fucking our eyeballs” fire).

- He also said that the CG special effects aren’t necessarily revolutionary, but he believes that the way he’s shooting the film, with a camera that can give him and the actors instant feedback with a rendered image that loosely replicates what will be on screen in the final product, could very well change moviemaking. (He said the rendering looks like an “80’s video game” right now, but technology should advance to the point where it could look like the final product while they're filming on set.)

- When somebody asked about getting good performances out of the actors when they’re acting opposite a tennis ball, he said he didn’t see how it was any different than somebody auditioning for him in an office in Santa Monica, and that on his next film, whatever that may be, he should be able to create a rig where an actor could be interacting with a monitor that could provide a virtual acting partner (with a voice) – he said it was just too expensive for this one for too few scenes.

-When asked about the future of exhibition, he said it could be an “indefinite” period of time before 3D films won’t require glasses, but believed that stereoscopic 3D could be moving to TV screens and portable devices within the next five years and added that “since we spend our lives in front of screens at work and when we come home, don’t you think if there was an improvement for screens, people would want it?”

- He did take a non-Avatar question when someone asked about “having other people take over franchises that you created.” He got a huge laugh when he cut to the chase and said, “oh Terminator?” He then said that he basically traded the rights for Terminator for a directing career and then when Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to do T3, his heart just wasn’t in it, though he had a few ideas. He said the producers “ran off with the rights, which caused some bad blood” and so when Arnold asked him after they were going in a different direction, Cameron told him, “just do me one thing – ask for more money than anyone ever has.” Arnold said, “reeeeealllly?” He said, “yes. Because what idiots would make a Terminator movie without you?” Which seemed like a direct jab at Terminator Salvation even though he was talking about T3. The audience roared accordingly.

-Somebody also asked about his reputation as a hardass on set and compared him with Michael Mann, to which Cameron jokingly replied, “What? Michael Mann’s a whacko.” (A crew member from two of his films stood up and defended him.)

- He also described his time since Titanic, mostly deep sea diving, seeing things “more amazing than anything in Hollywood since it was real.”

Ezee E

06-01-2009, 12:53 PM

A humbled James Cameron at the beginning? Never heard of that before. heh.

number8

06-01-2009, 04:54 PM

Interesting that he says indefinite time. Jeff Katzenberg is more optimistic. He told me (well, the room I was in) that he's already collaborating with Oakley to make stylish 3D glasses that turn into sunglasses in sunlight.

KK2.0

06-02-2009, 03:12 AM

videogame site is up http://avatargame.us.ubi.com/

with probably the first look on anything Avatar, but with videogame assets of course.

Dukefrukem

06-02-2009, 01:48 PM

WTF are those screens? Are we on Xen?

[ETM]

06-02-2009, 02:17 PM

Talk about audacity - not a single shot or trailer was seen from the film, there are three screenshots on the game site, and a preorder link?! Crazy.

Morris Schæffer

06-06-2009, 10:25 AM

Avatar to run 189 minutes?

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/06/04/avatar-running-time-is-over-two-and-a-half-hours/

Dukefrukem

06-06-2009, 11:55 AM

Not really surprising. All of his movies ran long, and the directors cuts ran ridiculous long. T2's RT was 152 minutes.

EvilShoe

06-06-2009, 02:29 PM

I just hope that when we finally get to see some footage, it won't look like Sky Captain 2.0.

Dukefrukem

06-06-2009, 03:05 PM

I just hope that when we finally get to see some footage, it won't look like Sky Captain 2.0.

God i hope not. I really don't like that art style. I don't like that movie either.

Saya

06-21-2009, 04:34 AM

http://i44.tinypic.com/2zstag5.jpg

Morris Schæffer

06-22-2009, 10:47 AM

It shouldn't be, but I'm thinking Phantom Menace reading all that with thousands of navi creatures replacing thousands of jar jar creatures.

Why am I thinking that?!! It's James Cameron dammit!!

Dukefrukem

06-22-2009, 11:15 AM

http://i44.tinypic.com/2zstag5.jpg

Bah! Blocked by my work!

What is it?!?

Grouchy

06-22-2009, 03:27 PM

Bah! Blocked by my work!

What is it?!?
A photo of James Cameron with his mouth open with the plot outline of the film awkwardly printed over it.

Dukefrukem

06-22-2009, 03:42 PM

Awww.

Qrazy

06-22-2009, 03:46 PM

A photo of James Cameron with his mouth open with the plot outline of the film awkwardly printed over it.

It's funny cause it's true.

[ETM]

06-22-2009, 08:16 PM

He's gotten real old, too. It's incredible how long it's been since we've seen him.

Grouchy

06-23-2009, 06:25 AM

I will not abide for this beardless Cameron thing, however old he might be.

This agression will not stand.

Watashi

06-24-2009, 09:28 AM

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/avatarparty2-550x303.jpg

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/avatarparty-550x309.jpg

“The Insider” files his report on ComingSoon: “jaw-dropping experience.” … “3-D until now has been used as a gimmick.” On the human characters inhabiting their Avatars: “It took my breath away. I thought–just like you guys–that I’ve seen it all with Gollum, or The Hulk, but Cameron has done it again. These creatures seem so real, that within minutes you forget you’re watching an enormous and very blue CGI character. Even the eyes are totally convincing. The characters have real personalities and a soul.” … “How the hell is it possible that I never once felt like I’ve been watching a movie where almost everything comes out of a computer?” … “The effects are in a league of their own. After some disappointing or even pointless 3-D movies, Avatar maybe the first movie where 3-D is properly utilized.”

“Anonymous” over on IESB: “It makes me want to create a time machine like Cartman from South Park, so that I don’t have to wait till the 18th of December to watch the finished movie. If it’s anything like the scenes I saw, it’s going to be one of the best movies of the decade.”

Unique Cinema Systems Nord on Twitter: “stunning, literally jawdropping. Amazing visuals unlike any before seen, with incredible detail.” … “CGI was photorealistic, characters look really real. Believe the hype, this movie will be massive!” … “Cameron told audience each frame of finished film takes 30-50 hrs to render, then double that up for 3D.”

A scooper at MarketSaw: “The clips were amazing” … “You will NOT believe the detail.” … “The world outside is amazing. It all lives, breathes and works.” … “You will not believe the amount of leaves that look like someone created that jungle for real.” … “Little fireflies and birds fly through the shots without being there. You just take them as the world, like a dove in Central Park. It’s not placed there, it lives there and just happens to be in the shot.” … “There’s a shot of leaves somewhere which is so photorealistic you don’t want to think it’s CGI. You believe this world from the get-go. It’s there, you don’t need to believe it because you will experience it.”

GJKooijman on Twitter: “is mindblown” … “Still in awe of meeting James Cameron… Avatar will change movie industry forever.. thank you Jim” … “It’s nothing you can imagine, it’s real. Cameron made a new planet and took a cam there.” … “THIS WILL CHANGE MOVIES FOREVER. Trust me, it will.”

Sperling on Twitter: “It’s official! The footage from “Avatar” shown at Cine Expo was amazing. Absolutely stunning in 3D. Should be a huge hit.”

Head on over to any of the linked sites for detailed descriptions of the footage screened. The photos above, courtesy of UCSNord, were on display at the After Party.