Xixax Film Forum

Cameron's Mysterious Project 880
Is it Avatar?

Last month, a casting call was being held to procure a female lead for James Cameron's first big-budget picture since Titanic.

FEMALE LEAD: 16-mid 20s. Any ethnicity, including Caucasian. She moves and behaves with confidence and a sense of nobility. Lithe as a cat. Athletic and agile. She is a warrior. Graceful movement and an ear for languages and dialects are essential.

At the time, it was thought that Cameron was assembling the cast for Battle Angel, an adaptation of a Japanese android-themed manga series set in the 26th century. But according to a big scoop at JoBlo.com, it appears that Cameron is instead gearing up for his mysterious Project 880. What's more, they seem to think that Project 880 is the same film as Avatar, a film that Cameron has been trying to get made for years.

According to script treatments that have been floating around on the Internet, Avatar is about an interplanetary war and strange aliens who manifest themselves by possessing human bodies – their avatars in our world. Set against this background is a love story and a man trying to make his way as a miner by melding with an alien. Copies of the treatment can still be found with a little digging.

One of the leads is a woman named Zuleika, who is described thusly: A NA'VI WOMAN. She is young, and lithe as a cat, with a long, slender neck, muscular shoulders, and nubile breasts... a statuesque vision. Let's not mince words here... she is devastatingly beautiful. For a girl with a tail. In human age she would be in her late teens.

According to JoBlo's source, Avatar will be made this spring at Fox Studios Baja. If that's the case, official announcements cannot be far off.

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 21, 2006, 03:23:18 PM
"One of the leads is a woman named Zuleika, who is described thusly: A NA'VI WOMAN. She is young, and lithe as a cat, with a long, slender neck, muscular shoulders, and nubile breasts... a statuesque vision. Let's not mince words here... she is devastatingly beautiful. For a girl with a tail. In human age she would be in her late teens."

That's absolutely horrible... it reads like a Bill O'Reilly novel.  Seriously, "nubile breasts"?

Cameron Gives 880 Details
Online game to accompany film release.

Director James Cameron has confirmed to Business Week that the new film he is working on is indeed the mysterious Project 880. Cameron describes it only as "completely crazy, balls-out sci-fi" so far.

But he did reveal some highly unusual plans for the film. He intends for it to be a unique interactive experience, and will be preceeded by the opening of a massively multiplayer online RPG — a video game in which thousands of Internet-connected players simultaneously interact, compete, and cooperate.

In fact, it seems like a reversal of the usual movie-based-game formula. With Project 880 (or Avatar, as it might be called), players will experience the story's events and characters before seeing the film at the theater.

"So much of literary sci-fi is about creating worlds that are rich and detailed and make sense at a social level," explains Cameron. "We'll create a world for people, and then later present a narrative in that world."

"You are exploring the interaction of technology and the human imagination, and you play it out in a highly competitive, fast-paced interaction."

Is Cameron trying to create a revolutionary new synthesis of the game and movie genres? Or is his aim something more down-to-earth — money? After all, the online RPG's current big title, World of Warcraft, has earned its makers about $300 million in game sales and subscriptions — and that number goes up steadily every month.

Yet, as Business Week cannily notes, video games are a real hit-or-miss business. The cost of producing them approaches the cost of making movies, and a flop could end up with few or no buyers. For every EverQuest and World of Warcraft, there are many expensive failures.

It's also not clear yet whom Cameron will turn to for development of the Project 880 game. The development of a stable product and a highly-detailed online world takes years and demands the skills of the game industry's brightest programmers and artists.

Nevertheless, it's a fascinating project. Hopefully, Cameron's Project 880 won't keep us in suspense for too many more years.

Cameron Confirms Project 880 is Next
Source: Entertainment Weekly February 17, 2006

Titanic director James Cameron confirmed to Entertainment Weekly that he will first make the secretive Project 880 before moving on to Battle Angel, based on Yukito Kishiro's Japanese graphic novels.

"We've moved 'Project 880' into first position," Cameron said. "It's as classified as the Manhattan Project." Many believe it is actually a version of Avatar, the director's oft-rumored love story set against interplanetary war.

Cameron is ready to shoot "880" at 20th Century Fox - where he's also preparing Battle Angel. Neither film has been completely cast, but "880" is now slated for 2007 and "Angel" is targeted for 2009. "We couldn't do one unless we do both" says Cameron. "They use the same technology." Both projects will be shot in new High Definition 3-D.

Cameron adds that the release date years are still up in the air. "We don't want to get jammed up like on 'Titanic'... consensus has been we will serve no wine before its time."

More on Project 880
Casting call gives story hints.

James Cameron is moving forward with his first big-budget motion picture since Titanic. A casting call has gone out for several parts in the secretive Project 880; Movie City News has the report, which includes character and story details.

In the future, Jake, a paraplegic war veteran is brought to another planet, Pandora, which is inhabited by the Na'vi, a humanoid race with their own language and culture. Those from Earth find themselves at odds with each other and the local culture.

If the story holds true to the Avatar treatment Cameron wrote several years back, these Na'vi could be humans "possessed" by incorporeal aliens, who use them as their avatars.

A character named Jake is the star of the story — a young, angry human who has his life turned around when he visits Pandora. On that strange world, he meets Neytiri, an "exotic" young woman who becomes his teacher and lover. "She moves and behaves with confidence and a sense of nobility," reads her casting call. "Lithe as a cat. Athletic and agile, she is a warrior. Graceful movement and an ear for languages and dialects are essential."

Other characters include Norm, Jake's human pal; Tsu'tey, Neytiri's former betrothed who must reconcile his hate for Jake with his need to save his people; Quaritch, a Marine Corp general who's come to Pandora in search of a war; and Selfridge, Earth's governor for their operations on Pandora.

Project 880 is going to be shot with Cameron's digital 3-D technology, the first major film to be made in this format. Cameron has previously described his ambitious project as "completely crazy, balls-out sci-fi", and doesn't feel normal film projection methods can capture the movie he's planning to make.

Cameron is also considering a massively multiplayer online RPG (role-playing game) to tie in with the film and its universe.

go crazy, jim.  it's been 10 years.

Cameron comes back with CG extravaganza
Source: Hollywood Reporter

After nine years, during which time he has not launched a new feature film, James Cameron finally is targeting a summer 2008 release for his next project, 20th Century Fox's "Avatar," and he hopes to start shooting a cast of unknown actors on a stage in Los Angeles by February.

Cameron is plotting a high-concept comeback film for his return to mainstream features, well in the wake of his king-making helming of 1997's "Titanic." His new project, which also has gone under the cover title "Project 880," follows a paraplegic war veteran from Earth who is brought to another planet inhabited by a humanoid race at odds with Earth's citizens.

"Believe it or not, the shooting is a very small part of it," Cameron says. "It's a very, very big project where the shooting is like a month and a half -- not really very much. There's just so much CG, and the visual effects are a huge component. A lot of it is performance capture. We use different techniques (from, for example, Sony Pictures' upcoming 'Monster House'), but it's the same general idea."

Cameron takes pains to make a distinction between his use of performance capture versus the more popular motion capture techniques that often heavily modify recorded gestures in postproduction.

"With performance capture, you're capturing exactly what the actor does and translating it to the CG character without the interpretation of animators," he says. "So it's not performance by committee, it's performance by the actor. I'm an absolute stickler about this, and I wanted to make a director-centric performance capture process. We've spent literally since August of last year creating this and now we're ready to go."

Now that his next-generation production technologies have been hammered out, Cameron is focussing his attention on auditioning actors.

"We're very active right now in terms of casting," Cameron says. "We're not looking at anyone, we're looking at everyone. There are a number of characters that we can cast from that up-and-coming talent pool. They're not going to be well-known names -- until after the movie, hopefully."

Cameron says he much prefers discovering new talent than relying on the known quantities of established stars.

"It's more of a thrill to find people who are just about ready to break and recognizing what they have and then moving them to the next level," the director says. "That's more exciting, I think, than just hitching my wagon to Tom Cruise or John Travolta or whatever. They're great guys, I know them, but it's not as interesting to me."

That said, Cameron doesn't entirely shun celebrities, either.

"There are what, 10 to 15 bankable stars?" he says. "There are a lot more movies than that and there have to be other ways to make movies. We may end up with stars in 'Avatar' but it's not a requirement."

Cameron openly jokes about the digital HD 3-D digital camera rig he has been developing for six years with the help of Vince Pace.

"Vince and I have worked since 2000 developing this camera system," Cameron says. "And the irony is it was developed for me to use. And I've been going off and doing all these expeditions and doing expedition films in 3-D. We've really flogged the camera, made sure it works, upgraded it, re-engineered it, but now other people are using it, which is good, which I also like."

Four Cameron/Pace 3-D HD camera rigs are being used in production. Three are out on Eric Brevig's "Journey 3-D" for New Line Cinema in Vancouver and Giant Screen Films' is using a rig in South Africa on the Imax feature "Ocean Frenzy." But next, it will be Cameron's turn to put his own technology to use.

Quote from: modage on July 07, 2006, 04:04:29 PM
Cameron openly jokes about the digital HD 3-D digital camera rig he has been developing for six years with the help of Vince Pace.

"Vince and I have worked since 2000 developing this camera system," Cameron says. "And the irony is it was developed for me to use. And I've been going off and doing all these expeditions and doing expedition films in 3-D. We've really flogged the camera, made sure it works, upgraded it, re-engineered it, but now other people are using it, which is good, which I also like."

This is not a joke, nor is it ironic that other people are using the camera as well.

Errors, errors.  All must die.

Quote from: matt35mm on July 08, 2006, 03:39:00 AM

Quote from: modage on July 07, 2006, 04:04:29 PM
Cameron openly jokes about the digital HD 3-D digital camera rig he has been developing for six years with the help of Vince Pace.

"Vince and I have worked since 2000 developing this camera system," Cameron says. "And the irony is it was developed for me to use. And I've been going off and doing all these expeditions and doing expedition films in 3-D. We've really flogged the camera, made sure it works, upgraded it, re-engineered it, but now other people are using it, which is good, which I also like."

This is not a joke

i guess you had to be there.

behind the bushes.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Femoticons%2Fduck_hunt_dog.gif&hash=6ed5cb7b39fbcba45e64081d9e92d532c85b0aeb)

Cameron's Avatar Due In '09
Source: Sci Fi Wire

Director James Cameron told the British Independent newspaper that he has pushed back the release date of his upcoming SF epic movie Avatar to the summer of 2009. "I'll spend many months completing the special effects on Avatar, and it will not be released until the summer of 2009," Cameron told the paper. "It's quite a challenge, and for that reason, I embrace it."

Cameron, who has devoted several years to filming science documentaries, is ready to tackle another big-budget science fiction film, like his Terminator series. "I felt I'd exhausted the treasury, and it was time to go back to work," Cameron said. "Avatar is a very ambitious sci-fi movie. ... It's a futuristic tale set on a planet 200 years hence. It's an old-fashioned jungle adventure with an environmental conscience. It aspires to a mythic level of storytelling."

Cameron wrote the screenplay 11 years ago, and it has been featured on Empire magazine's list of the 12 greatest unproduced scripts in Hollywood. "The film requires me to create an entirely new alien culture and language, and for that I want 'photo-real' CGI characters," Cameron said. "Sophisticated enough performance-capture animation technology is only coming on stream now. I've spent the last 14 months doing performance-capture work. The actor performs the character, and then we animate it."

still movie of the decade.

YES.

'Titanic' Director Joins Fox on $200 Million Film
By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: January 8, 2007

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 8 — James Cameron, the director whose "Titanic" set a record for ticket sales around the world, will join 20th Century Fox in tackling a similarly ambitious and costly film, "Avatar," which will test new technologies on a scale unseen before in Hollywood, the studio and the filmmaker said today.

The film, with a budget of close to $200 million, is an original science fiction story that will be shown in3D in conventional theaters. The story pits a human army against an alien army on a distant planet, using live actors and digital technology to make a large cast of virtual creatures who convey emotion as authentically as humans.

Earlier movies like the "The Lord of the Rings" did so on a limited basis, while those like "The Polar Express" have used live actors to drive animated images with so-called "motion capture" technology. But none has gone as far as "Avatar" will do to create an entirely photorealistic world, complete with virtual characters on that scale, Mr. Cameron said in a telephone interview.

"This film is a true hybrid — a full live-action shoot, with C.G. characters in C.G. and live environments," he said, referring computer-generated images. "Ideally at the end of the of day the audience has no idea which they're looking at."

The making of "Titanic," Mr. Cameron's last full-blown Hollywood feature, was the stuff of movie legend. The film, released in 1997, went far over its planned cost to become the most expensive production that had then been made. But it went on to become a historic success, taking in a record-breaking $1.8 billion at the worldwide box office, and also winning 11 Oscars, including an award for best picture.

Mr. Cameron said that he had taken care to avoid the problems he encountered on his last gargantuan production, and that he was already four months into shooting the nonprincipal scenes by the time Fox gave final approval to the project today.

"I've looked long and hard at 'Titanic' and other effects-related things I've done where they've drifted budget-wise," he said. "This has been designed from the ground up to avoid those pitfalls. Will we have other pitfalls? Yes, probably."

For its aliens, "Avatar" will rely on characters that will be designed in the computer, but played by human actors, with tiny cameras on headsets recording their performances to be inserted into a virtual world.

Mr. Cameron has already devised revolutionary methods to shoot the film, which he has been quietly doing since the fall, and expects to create still more methods to bring to life the vision of a completely realistic alien world. He and computer experts have designed a camera that allows the director to observe the performance of the actors-as-aliens in the virtual environment in real time.

Sam Worthington, a young Australian actor, has been named to play the lead, as a paralyzed former marine who undergoes an experiment to exist as an avatar, another version of himself. The avatar is not paralyzed, but is an alien — 10 feet tall and blue. Zoe Saldana, another relative unknown, has been chosen as the love interest.

"We could do it with make-up, in a 'Star Trek' manner, we could put rubber on his face, but I wasn't interested in doing it that way," said Mr. Cameron. "With the new tools, we can create a humanoid character that is anything we imagine it to be — beautiful, elegant, graceful, powerful — evocative of us, but still with an emotional connection."

The live-action shoot with actors will begin in April, with major effects being done by Weta, the filmmaker Peter Jackson's New Zealand-based effects company, which worked on his "Lord of the Rings." The film is scheduled for release in summer 2009.

"This will launch an entire new way of seeing and exhibiting movies," said Jim Gianopulos, co-chairman of Fox Filmed Entertainment. "It's once again Jim is transforming the medium. Jim's not just a filmmaker; every one of his films have pushed the envelope, in its aesthetic and in technology. This is an astounding undertaking, and one only Jim could do justice to."

Interview with J. Cam Pt. 1: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31191

The bad thing: Cameron sounds like George Lucas by explaning how new and inventive technology will sell tickets for the movie (yawn). The good thing: Cameron also made Terminator 2, which while a special effects bonzana for its time, still holds up as decent action. Lucas' effort in Attack of the Clones was corny on arrival. So Cameron has better decision making skills.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on January 14, 2007, 04:22:45 PM
The bad thing: Cameron sounds like George Lucas by explaning how new and inventive technology will sell tickets for the movie (yawn).

i'll tell you what.  i'm a huge james cameron fan, but this thought occured to me the other day.  its been so long since he's made a film, this could be The Phantom Menace if it doesnt work.

Quote from: modage on January 14, 2007, 04:33:06 PM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on January 14, 2007, 04:22:45 PM
The bad thing: Cameron sounds like George Lucas by explaning how new and inventive technology will sell tickets for the movie (yawn).

i'll tell you what.  i'm a huge james cameron fan, but this thought occured to me the other day.  its been so long since he's made a film, this could be The Phantom Menace if it doesnt work.

I think of that Final Fantasy movie that cost a ton to make and sank an entire company because it failed. That film tried to utilize computer animation to such length that it could mimic actors facial mannerisms. The filmmakers and studio made such a big deal about it and talked like they are for this one. I remember watching it the first weekend and seeing an honest attempt to make a good action film but I knew the audience wouldn't connect. I think if Avatar fails to find an audience it will be because of a bad story or just an inability for the studio to connect. But, I do like that they are already promoting the film. I remember being excited for Lord of the Rings before it was ever made because the studios were pushing the hype early.

The Phantom Menace failed because of Lucas' ego. The effects weren't terrible (they were in Attack of the Clones), but the movie had no semblance of the originals and Lucas hired good actors but purposely underplayed them. That film was ready to be an explosian in every way. The logistics to work was all there. It just took itself too seriously and was not fun at all.

Ellen Ripley going to Avatar?
Source: Moviehole

The source isn't exactly 'Deep Throat' so intersperse some table salt all over this one, but according to a tipster for Aint it Cool News, "Aliens" heroine Sigourney Weaver might be re-uniting with director James Cameron for his new film, "Avatar".

The versatile but not-oft-seen-these-days Weaver – in need of a hit, that's for sure – apparently appeared on a French talk show and let slip that she's doing Cameron's next film. Though Ms Weaver didn't name the film, she did mention it's a "big sci-fi" film. Since it's Cameron, and he only makes one film a decade, that's pretty much guaranteed to be "Avatar".

In addition, Weaver was also asked by the TV show whether Ellen Ripley would be making a return to the "Alien" battleground? According to Weaver – who at one time was interested in doing another one, if only because James Cameron and Ridley Scott were too – nope, she won't be taking down any more slimy suckers in the future.

If she does indeed sign up for a role in "Avatar" – joining recently announced Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana – Weaver will have plenty of opportunity to talk to Cameron about the "Alien" movies, and hopefully, they can dream up another sequel together. Even if it never comes to fruition, fanboys can still get damp over even the word "discussing", so consider it, guys.

the big question on my mind is WHO is James Cameron gonna marry out of this film?

every one of his last films has either starred or been produced by his then/future-wife, whom he then dumps in preparation for the next picture. the exception being true lies, which was obviously about his own marital problems. he's now stuck indefinitely with suzy amis since she just gave birth to their kid late december. i fear that avatar is being delayed because he can't find a part for her, and at worst the film could suffer for it if the matter is not resolved.. or resolved too hastily if he forces a part for her.

the solution: i implore everyone to get out your little zwartboek, start dialling and find the man a leading lady!

Quote from: Pubrick on January 18, 2007, 02:26:14 AM
the big question i'm wondering about is WHO is James Cameron gonna marry out of this film?

If it's Zoe Saldana, I'm going to kill myself.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2F53207390AJ037_Dreamworks_Pr.jpg&hash=9dc637cd48961e8eb2f718cfd3151969dbc3280c)

Great Expectations
The director reveals how he got Fox to greenlight his $195 million technology-driven motion picture - Entertainment Weekly

James Cameron is finally following up that movie about the boat accident. His new project, Avatar, is an epic, 3-D sci-fi film about an ex-Marine on an inhospitable planet where humans can only survive by projecting their consciousness into genetically engineered bodies (a.k.a. ''avatars''). The people of earth want to exploit the planet's natural resources, of course, causing the inhabitants to revolt and a war to break out. The rub for the protagonist, named Jake (played by newcomer Sam Worthington), is that he's fallen in love with a native (Zoe Saldana), forcing him to choose a side in the battle. Fox has gone out on a limb, granting Cameron a whopping $195 million to tell the tale — but hey, what's a couple hundred mil for a guy who racked up 11 Oscars with his last full-length feature? 

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: For a while now, you've been debating between two different projects: Avatar, which is an original screenplay that you wrote, and Battle Angel, adapted from a series of Japanese comics. So why pick Avatar?
JAMES CAMERON: Well, Battle Angel and Avatar were being developed at the same time. The thinking was that we'd be using similar technology to create either one or both of those films. It was little bit of a horse race there for a while to see which one was going to be done first. The way I pitched it to Fox was, ''We're doing both these films.'' The order is relatively arbitrary, because we're making an investment in a methodology and a technical infrastructure that could produce both. But I ultimately had to choose which one was going to be first, and I began to run into a bunch of script problems with Battle Angel, because I was synthesizing down these graphic novels. There are 10 of them. It was the kid in the candy store problem — too many good ideas and no story. So we went through five drafts and didn't solve them. So I switched to Avatar and we started developing that. Then, of course, a great script came in on Battle Angel! Which is a good problem to have, because I had two great projects, either one of which the studio would be happy to go ahead with. I would say it was August or September of 2005 we decided to push ahead with Avatar. Believe it or not, it was that long ago.

What was the deciding factor?
We did a test of the performance-capture techniques we wanted and needed to use to make this film — a live action, real-time, director-centric performance-capture process. In other words, as the actors perform, I'm able to see in the monitor not only what they might look like as their CG character, but in the CG environment we've created, and direct them accordingly. When we did the test, we chose Avatar, just because it seemed like the easiest one to get going for a test, for a lot of reasons.

This is an original screenplay, correct?
That's correct.

How did you come up with this story?
Well, my inspiration is every single science fiction book I read as a kid. And a few that weren't science fiction. The Edgar Rice Burroughs books, H. Rider Haggard — the manly, jungle adventure writers. I wanted to do an old fashioned jungle adventure, just set it on another planet, and play by those rules.

Your premise reminded me a lot of the Edgar Rice Burroughs John Carter, Warlord of Mars series.
It's definitely got that feeling, and I wanted to capture that feeling, but updated. To be certain, I wanted a film that could encompass all my interests, from biology, technology, the environment — a whole host of passions. But I've always had a fondness for those kind of science fiction/adventure stories, the male warrior in an exotic, alien land, overcoming physical challenges and confronting the fears of difference. Do we conquer? Exploit? Integrate? Avatar explores those issues.

How long has this been in your head?
I wrote an 80-page treatment 11 years ago. We were working from the treatment in designing the world and the creatures and so on. I wrote the script the first four months of 2006.

Is it true you have developed a whole culture and even a whole language for the aliens in this movie?
Absolutely. We have this indigenous population of humanoid beings who are living at a relatively Neolithic level; they hunt with bows and arrows. They live very closely and harmoniously with their environment, but they are also quite threatening to the humans who are trying to colonize and mine and exploit this planet.

Sounds like you've crafted a story with a lot of political resonance.
Only in the very broadest sense of how we as a Western technological civilization deal with indigenous cultures; we basically supplant them. If not in an active, genocidal way, then in a passive manner. They just kind of wither away. Our impact on the natural environment, wherever we go — strip mining and putting up shopping malls. Now, we're extending that to another planet.

How long did it take to brainstorm the language? Did you work with people on that?
There's a guy named Paul Froemer who I was lucky enough to encounter a year ago. He's the head of the linguistics department at USC. I talked with a number of linguistics experts, but he was the one who kind of got the challenge. He said, ''We're going to beat Klingon! We're going to out-Klingon Klingon! We're going to have a more detailed and well thought out language than Klingon!'' He's been working on this for a year. It began by riffing off things in the treatment, but from there, it went to how sentences would be constructed, and what the sound system would be. It would have to be something that was pronounceable by the actors but sounded exotic and not specific to human languages. So he's mixing bits of Polynesian and some African languages, and all this together. It sounds great.

What was the tipping point in terms of realizing that this movie was technically possible?
Looking at what Peter Jackson was able to do with Gollum, and then King Kong. And Davy Jones [from Pirates of the Caribbean] — all these examples of compelling photo-realistic, fully CG characters, in a photo-realistic world. I don't think many people are aware that a lot of the jungle scenes in King Kong were actually CG. They did a lot with miniatures, but toward the end they were doing a lot of the jungles in CG.

Was the number of theaters that could exhibit a 3-D movie also on your mind in terms of when to go forward with this?
Absolutely. There's been a sense for me over the past two or three years of, ''Well, if not this year, then it's okay next year for me to start a movie, because the longer I wait, the more theaters there will be,'' and I want to be able to land in 1,000, 1,500 theaters — as many theaters as I can — in digital 3-D. Because I've been working with our 3-D cameras over the past six years. We've refined them. They work great. They work perfectly. I love working with them. I don't want to go back to shooting on film. I don't want to go back to shooting in 2-D, so for me it was just a question of waiting for the right moment. In fact, I think I've actually waited too long. Everybody else is out there making animated films and putting them in 3-D and this is such a big picture. We're not going to land in theaters until summer of '09. But I think we can be sure that we will have a lot of 3-D screens by '09 at the rate they've been increasing.

How did you convince Fox to do this movie?
Walking them through the process. It's a good thing we actually had built a functional stage environment that was producing usable footage. When they came down and saw it they went, ''Wow, maybe this is the way to make one of these movies, where you have so much more of a sense of control and confidence as you're making the pictures.'' Because I'll be able to literally turn over cut sequences as we go, right from the get-go. Right from the time we start with the actors, the studio will be able to see it. So instead of spending an enormous amount of money, and then after the money is all spent, still not having scenes with a rough sense of what they really like because the special effects process hasn't really even begun yet, they'll be able to see what it looks like as we go along.

To be clear, Fox was financing all this development, correct?
Correct. We were on a week-to-week funding scheme, where we continued to develop and do budgets and do the F/X breakdowns. But while we were doing that we were actually doing capture on a weekly basis. I would do a day, or two days, or three days of motion-capture work. We were actually working out the methodology. So I was able to bring them down and tour them through the facility and show them all the design work and really give them a sense of how much preparation this film had under its belt. I think they felt that yes, this is a very daunting project, but that it was also the most intricately planned project since... well, since ever. [Laughter]

When did you invite them down and give them that tour and show them what you had been doing?
l would say that was a couple months ago. And then the conversation evolved into casting. We were going to make this big expensive film — were we really going to do it with a cast of unknowns? Relative unknowns, not stars. Not Tom Cruise. So we had to get our minds around that. Or they had to. I was already pretty happy with our choices.

And you had already made those choices.
Well, we had already cast a few actors. What we were talking about was the lead, the male lead. I had found Sam Worthington fairly early in the process. He really hung in there and trooped with us for a long time. He came in for a couple screen tests, and kinda hung on, hoping. So I have to give him credit for that. It was a very exhaustive process. We looked at a lot of people. There were people who were championed by the studio and I even screen-tested them. Ultimately, when I showed them Sam against their champions, they was no comparison.

Was there any concern at the studio about the potential budget for this, given their experience with you on Titanic?
Absolutely... A lot of the last six months was about figuring how to make this a very, very finite process that's not prey to all these pitfalls of these big effects movies. So a lot of scrutiny was spent on the contracts with Weta [the New Zealand-based F/X facility], a lot of scrutiny on the budget, the methodology, on testing and so on. As the process went on, the confidence level increased that the number was not going to change.

The reported figure is $200 million. Is that accurate?
The reported figure is supposed to be $195 million — that's what our budget is. Is that figure going to drift by a couple percentage points up or down? Probably. I don't think you can do any big project and land exactly on budget. But I'm hoping to come under. Really shock everyone.

That would shock everyone.
But the history of the last six years is that that's all I've done. I did 44 hours of television — Dark Angel — that was done on budget and on schedule. I did four major documentary projects that were subject to Atlantic and Pacific storms and all these exegeses of major ocean expeditions, and they were all done on budget. I've spent really the past few years working on our methodology for this type of big, mainstream effects film, and doing it within parameters, which is something Hollywood typically isn't very good at... A film like Titanic, we had a six-month shoot. At the end of those six months, because we had been working flat-out, six days a week, very little of the picture was cut, there was very little to be turned over to the F/X guys in terms of finite counts, and so all of the F/X got jammed into the last four months of making the movie. That's why we didn't make our release date and why we went over budget in effects, because we had to divide it up amongst 14 vendors to even attempt to make our date. In direct contrast to that, I have almost two and a half years on this film, and we've already been doing performance-capture for four months, and the F/X guys are already working... Our live action shoot is just 31 days — it's a fifth of Titanic, all on stages, all interiors. We'll do all that in New Zealand. All the sets are designed now. We don't even begin site construction until May.

When will you start shooting those 31 days?
Late August. Might drift to September.

How excited are you to be back making movies like this?
Oh yeah! I always assumed I would come back and be that guy again. I didn't think it would take this long. I was having too much damn fun doing expeditions. And frankly, I've already been working on this movie pretty exclusively for a year and a half. So I feel like I've already been doing it. We're just announcing it now; it feels like I've been part of the Manhattan Project and we're going public.

Will you still do Battle Angel?
Yeah. In fact, this film has a very long tail on it, about a year and half of post-production. Basically, after I finish my job as a director, after directing the actors and editing a film and turning over a cut, I think it's very possible that I can slip a good six months of pre-production of Battle Angel into that period.

Will Fox be involved?
That's a Fox project, as well.

When you go down to New Zealand, will you be bunking with Peter Jackson?
Peter and I have gotten to be friends over the past couple years. He's a 3-D fanatic, like I am, and he loves the effects, and he loves the big show, and he loves fantasy filmmaking. I'm going to be relying on all the infrastructure he's built down there, from the live action soundstages to the Weta workshop, where they're going to make all the props and sets. It's going to be, ''Thanks for building all this, Peter. Now can you move out for a year and let me use it?''

James Cameron Reveals Avatar Cast
Source: ComingSoon

James Cameron chatted with Ain't It Cool News on his way back from shooting three days of live action work in Kauai for Avatar. In the conversation, he confirmed more members of the cast:

WES STUDI, SIGOURNEY WEAVER (confirmed as Grace), Peter Mensah, Joel David Moore (fantastic in both HATCHET and SPIRAL) - I imagine him as being Hippy-esque (think ABYSS), C.C.H. Pounder (love her) and then last but not least... I believe it was Laz Alonso - looking at his filmography - that's the name that most fits with what I heard.

Cameron will now begin a stage of the production called Pre-Capture with stars Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana. You can read more on Cameron's comments here.

The sci-fi action-adventure comes to theaters in summer 2009. It 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.


http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31589

James Cameron's Avatar Gets a Date!
Source: ComingSoon

Avatar, James Cameron's long-awaited non-doc follow-up to his 1997 Oscar-winning blockbuster Titanic, has claimed its date of release, and it's going to be hitting theatres on Memorial Day weekend in 2009. That's in just 27 short months for those who want to start standing in line.

With a cast that includes Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana and Sigourney Weaver, Cameron's sci-fi epic is about 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.

'Avatar' Actor Talks Cameron Film: 'The Technology ... Hasn't Been Done Before'
Laz Alonso provides tantalizing hints about James Cameron's top-secret upcoming flick.
Source: MTV

HOLLYWOOD — Forget about Indy whatever and Batman whatchamacallit, because everybody knows that the hardest-to-acquire movie news these days regards "Avatar," the top-secret sci-fi flick that is finally bringing James Cameron back to theaters after a 12-year "Titanic" — inspired hiatus.

Cameron recently allowed actor Laz Alonso to run loose for a few hours so he could attend the recent premiere of his film "Captivity" and, naturally, we threatened to strap him down to one of the torture chairs inside the event unless he talked to us about Cameron's flick.

"It's going great man, I mean the guy deserves every great thing that's been said about him as far as his creativity," the "Stomp the Yard" actor said of the shoot. "We work really hard, and he's really passionate, and we're really excited about what we're doing. May 2009 is a long time away, but we just feel the fever right now — it's alive."

Rumors say that the film is about a paraplegic war veteran traveling to another planet on a diplomatic mission. It involves the environment, technology, and aliens — but Alonso wasn't eager to contribute much beyond that, insisting that he's not even allowed to describe his character.

"I had to sign something that swore me to secrecy; to be honest with you, I don't know what I'm allowed to talk about or not — so just to be on the safe side, I ain't saying jack," he shrugged. "But, it's just a sci-fi movie that's going to blow your socks off."

This much we do know: From "The Abyss" to "Terminator 2", Cameron loves to unveil new technology with his films. The filmmaker has already confirmed that the flick is being shot in 3D, and will combine live-action and computer-generated characters and environments.

"The technology that he's using is something that hasn't been done before, the way that he's doing it," Alonso said before naming a few of the VIP guests that have swung by the set. "When you see guys like Marilyn Manson coming through, and Peter Jackson and Spielberg coming through to see what this new cutting-edge technology is, you know you really have something special going on."

"What we're seeing right now as far as technology is level one," he said of today's blockbusters. "What you'll be seeing when this movie comes out is roughly like a level 20."

Alonso revealed that he's been working opposite several veteran actors, and is about to start filming scenes opposite Cameron's "Aliens" leading lady. "I actually will be working with Sigourney Weaver next week — she's been in New York finishing up a project," he explained. "She's on board until the end of the picture, so we'll be working together for the next few months."

"Zoe Saldana plays my counterpart, Sam Worthington plays the lead," he said of the actors he's worked opposite. "CCH Pounder, Peter Mensah, Wes Studi ... it's a really dynamic cast, people from all different types of backgrounds. The majority of us though have done theater, so you can tell that Jim likes to work with a lot of theater actors."

Reflecting on the performance of "The Shield" star Pounder, Alonso said: "Oh man, when she comes on, and when you see her in the movie — you'll know it," he grinned. "[Her character] has this very regal presence about her. When she steps on set, you know she's arrived. [Pounder] fits very, very well with her character."

Finally, Alonso revealed that he has not been privy to Cameron's shoots in New Zealand or Hawaii, but has instead spent most of his time in front of a green screen in Playa Vista, California. "I'm primarily here in the States; we're doing it here in Los Angeles on a sound stage," the actor said. "For the purpose of this film, when you work in a digital environment, you can pretty much create whatever it is that you want. We do have that freedom to stay in one place for our section.

"The world is our oyster."

Well my excitement level just went limp. Can they CGI replace her "acting"/one-note face?:

Lang, Rodriguez armed for 'Avatar'
Cameron film begins production
Source: Variety

James Cameron has added two cast members to "Avatar." Stephen Lang and Michelle Rodriguez will join Australian actor Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Wes Studi and CCH Pounder in the performance-capture pic, which is in production in Los Angeles. In October, the company will move to Wellington, New Zealand, close to Peter Jackson's Weta Digital, which is supervising the film's visual effects.

Lang plays a seasoned Marine Corps colonel who travels to the faraway planet Pandora to take charge of its troops. Lang is known for his New York theater roles in "A Few Good Men," "Defiance" and "Death of a Salesman." He'll wrap up 101 performances at the Roundabout Theater in his sold-out one-man show "Beyond Glory" on Aug. 19 and then take on the "Avatar" role.

Lang first met Cameron 20 years ago for a role in "Aliens" he didn't get. But Cameron never forgot him.

Rodriguez plays an ex-Marine pilot. "Michelle Rodriguez is someone I've wanted to work with since I saw 'Girlfight' seven years ago," said Cameron.  Film is a $190 million hybrid of live action and animation. Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment team has researched a mix of live-action cinematography and virtual photorealistic production techniques which will feature virtual characters. Thirty-one days of live-action photography will begin on Weta soundstages in October.

Pic will be produced by Cameron and Jon Landau for Lightstorm. Mauro Fiore ("Training Day," "The Island," "Kingdom") has been hired as d.p.

"Avatar," which will be filmed in a new digital 3-D format, is skedded to debut on May 22, 2009.

Quote from: MacGuffin on August 03, 2007, 12:10:15 AM
Well my excitement level just went limp. Can they CGI replace her "acting"/one-note face?:

last weekend i saw her on my street 2 blocks from my apartment.  i should've asked her about that.

EXCL: Moore on Cameron's Avatar
Source: ComingSoon

James Cameron is making history with his next flick, Avatar – there's no mistake about it. The movie will be shot on a Cameron-created 3D camera system, using motion capture and live-action in the same shot. It's so impressive, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have both been visiting the set to watch Jim in action.

According to everyone I've spoken to, it's going to change the way we watch film. And that goes the same for Joel David Moore, who stars along side Sigourney Weaver, Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Wes Studi, Michelle Rodriguez, CCH Pounder, Laz Alonso, Peter Mensah and Stephen Lang. Only half-way through shooting, Joel has been amazed at what he's seen so far. "I'll be shooting that for a while; we started in February and we are shooting until February 2008 – it'll be a year of my life by the time it's done. But I gotta tell you, it's the most amazing thing I've ever done."

And that starts with working with Jim Cameron. "He's one of the biggest and best directors in the business and to be able to be put in that position of luxury and comfort is really cool. When I first sat down and read the script for the first time, it's got James Cameron, this is the most amazing thing, it's going to be a sci-fi thing. So I assumed this is just a sci-fi, but it's so much more. And even better than that is what we're doing; it's just stunning. I have to be discrete even talking about it, but they're going to blow your mind. As far as technology, it's history in movie making; people are likening this to the creation of color TV."

In Avatar, Joel and Sigourney play anthropologists, studying plant and nature life, on another planet. "We're over there trying to study this other system," Joel adds. "In that, we learn about them and learn that we like a lot about them that we may or may not like about humanity. And this is something Jim has done well – he's given an arch to all his characters that we all have our own stories and struggles; no one's just tagging along for the ride. It's pretty spectacular."

The interesting part about this system Cameron is using is that no one is allowed to talk about it. Normally, people aren't supposed to talk about their character or the plot of a movie; but this is the first time I've heard where actors and actresses aren't able to discuss what cameras are being used. "It's more of the overall technology being used; Jim knows what he's doing, but we can't talk about the way he's doing it because it's his creation. He's created this style of motion capture."

Joel also credits Jim for bringing in Sigourney, reuniting the two since working on Aliens (1986). "There's a reason she's working on this movie – he's just got that way of making films. And that way is always successful and on top of his game. And I can't say enough about Sigourney; it's just amazing to be able to work with her. She's just a fan of it; she's willing to just go along for the ride. But to watch her in this new technology, in every step of the way been giddy about it, and open to trying everything; she's in there trying with the hustle of trying this. It's me and Sigourney and Sam (Worthington) trekking off to this other world and try to assimilate to this other society, and because of that, almost every one of my scenes is with them. We really team up and get through it and she's been fun throughout this process."

With filming on Avatar not set to end until February '08, and a release date of May 22, 2009, I'd say we're in for a nice surprise.

'Avatar' has new player with Ribisi
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Giovanni Ribisi is landing on a new planet.

The actor has signed on to James Cameron's 3-D feature "Avatar," playing a passive-aggressive character named Selfridge in the Fox film about a band of humans pitted against a distant planet's indigenous inhabitants.

He joins a cast that includes Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez.

The $190 million "Avatar" is set for release May 22, 2009, and features a blend of live-action photography and new virtual photorealistic production techniques invented by Cameron's team. The film features six computer-generated actors known as "synthespians" and is in production in Los Angeles and next month starts production in New Zealand at Weta Digital.

Cameron is writing and directing as well as producing with Jon Landau and Lightstorm Entertainment.

Emma Watts is overseeing for the studio.

The film marks Cameron's first dramatic feature since the Oscar-winning blockbuster "Titanic" in 1997.

it is just amazing and depressing how much time has passed since his last movie. but the weird thing is it doesn't feel like much has happened. is it just me getting old and not giving a shit about little events that used to mark big moments in my youth?

just think about the difference between 1990 and 1997. it was HUGE. but 2000-2007 was a blink. in terms of culture, major events, apart from 9/11 nothing at all has happened. that is until may 22, 2009.

Fox shifts 'Avatar,' 'Museum'
Studio shuffles 2009 schedule
Source: Variety

Substantially rearranging its 2009 tentpole sked, 20th Century Fox will release "Night at the Museum 2: Escape From the Smithsonian" on May 22 and move back James Cameron's 3-D "Avatar" from the Memorial Day frame to Dec. 18, giving the helmer more time for post-production.

News reps the first official word that Fox is pushing ahead with a sequel to box office hit "Night at the Museum," directed by Sean Levy and starring Ben Stiller, who will reteam on "Smithsonian." Sequel will be the first major Hollywood movie shot at the museum complex in Washington, D.C.

Fox Animation and Blue Sky Studios also announced that Fox has decided to produce "Ice Age 3" in digital 3-D. Toon was already set for release on July 1, 2009. Move signals studio's confidence in the power of modern-day 3-D.

Fox had previously announced it will kick off summer 2009 with the release of Hugh Jackman starrer "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" on May 1.

In summing up the various changes, Fox Film Group vice chair Hutch Parker said, "This is a win-win for us."

Screenplay for "Smithsonian" was penned by "Night at the Museum" scribes Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon, with a rewrite by Scott Frank. Levy will produce through his 21 Laps Entertainment, alongside 1492 Prods.' Chris Columbus.

Additional casting for "Smithsonian" will be announced in the coming weeks, with some actors from the first film expected to return. In bringing the Smithsonian museum to life, sequel also will introduce historical figures to the franchise, including Amelia Earhart, whom Reese Witherspoon has been approached to play.

"Night at the Museum," released last Christmas, grossed $252 million domestically and $323 million more overseas.

"Avatar," announced earlier this year, will now open on the same weekend that Cameron's "Titanic" did in 1997. The live-action/CGI hybrid is Cameron's first feature since "Titanic," which, after a decade, remains the highest-grossing film of all time, grossing $1.8 billion at the worldwide box office.

So far, no other films are dated for release on Dec. 18, 2009.

Pushing back the release of "Avatar" from May to December allows both more time to work on the effects and that much more time for additional theaters to install 3-D screens both here and abroad.

With the extra months, Cameron and Peter Jackson's Weta Digital will continue working on the groundbreaking technology invented by Cameron's team and Weta for the film.

"Making this change more than two years out allows Weta to achieve this unparalleled cinematic feat with the most efficient completion of the digital effects," Parker said.

Fox stressed that Cameron will soon complete live-action principal photography in New Zealand, on schedule. During its production, "Titanic" hit major delays.

Cameron and producing partner Jon Landau are producing "Avatar" through Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment. Cameron also penned the script.

Both "Avatar" and "Ice Age" will be released in conventional 35mm formats as well for smaller markets without 3-D screens.

Parker said producing "Ice Age 3" in digital 3-D still provides incentive for exhibs to install as many 3-D screens as they can by summer 2009.

"Ice Age: The Meltdown" director Carlos Saldanha, will direct "Ice Age 3." Voice talent Ray Romano, John Leguizamo, Queen Latifah and Denis Leary are back onboard. Pic is being produced by Lori Forte and John Donkin from a script by Michael Berg and Peter Ackerman.

Original decision to open "Avatar" on May 22, 2009, prompted Jeffrey Katzenberg's DreamWorks Animation to move 3-D toon "Monsters vs. Aliens" from May 15 to March 27, 2009, out of concern that there wouldn't be enough screens to handle two such films that close together.

This is gonna be the dog's bollocks  :yabbse-grin:

James Cameron supercharges 3-D
'Avatar' helmer reveals the art & science of stereo
Source: Variety

Director James Cameron's upcoming "Avatar" must rank as one of the most anticipated film projects in recent memory. His first narrative film since making the No. 1 box office hit of all time, 1997's "Titanic," "Avatar" will be the realization of Cameron's long-held dream of melding digital 3-D stereo with epic bigscreen storytelling. Variety's David S. Cohen conducted this email interview with Cameron; it is the director's most extensive exploration of 3-D to date, however he is keeping specifics about "Avatar" under wraps.

You've worked in 3-D before and have been an evangelist for this technology. We've heard lots of people in the industry talk about the importance of delivering an in-theater experience that goes beyond what people can get in the home. We're seeing that audiences like 3-D and it's becoming a main driver for adoption of digital cinema systems in movie theaters. But speaking strictly as a storyteller and director, what does 3-D add to the creative side of a project?

I believe that Godard got it exactly backwards. Cinema is not truth 24 times a second, it is lies 24 times a second. Actors are pretending to be people they're not, in situations and settings which are completely illusory. Day for night, dry for wet, Vancouver for New York, potato shavings for snow. The building is a thin-walled set, the sunlight is a xenon, and the traffic noise is supplied by the sound designers. It's all illusion, but the prize goes to those who make the fantasy the most real, the most visceral, the most involving. This sensation of truthfulness is vastly enhanced by the stereoscopic illusion. Especially in the types of films which have been my specialty to date, the fantasy experience is served best by a sense of detail and textural reality supporting the narrative moment by moment. The characters, the dialogue, the production design, photography and visual effects must all strive to give the illusion that what you're seeing is really happening, no matter how improbable the situation might be if you stopped to think about it -- a time-traveling cyborg out to change history by killing a waitress, for example. When you see a scene in 3-D, that sense of reality is supercharged. The visual cortex is being cued, at a subliminal but pervasive level, that what is being seen is real. All the films I've done previously could absolutely have benefited from 3-D. So creatively, I see 3-D as a natural extension of my cinematic craft.

A 3-D film immerses you in the scene, with a greatly enhanced sense of physical presence and participation. I believe that a functional-MRI study of brain activity would show that more neurons are actively engaged in processing a 3-D movie than the same film seen in 2-D. When most people think of 3-D films, they think first of the gimmick shots -- objects or characters flying, floating or poking out into the audience. In fact, in a good stereo movie, these shots should be the exception rather than the rule. Watching a stereo movie is looking into an alternate reality through a window. It is intuitive to the film industry that this immersive quality is perfect for action, fantasy, and animation. What's less obvious is that the enhanced sense of presence and realism works in all types of scenes, even intimate dramatic moments. Which is not to say that all films should be made in 3-D, because the returns may not warrant the costs in many cases, but certainly there should be no creative reason why any film could not be shot in 3-D and benefit from it.

When I started down the path of developing the 3-D cameras with Vince Pace in 2000, we were looking for an alternative to the massive film-based cameras I'd used in the past. Two years later, while deep in stereo technology development and production, I had an epiphany: that the digital projectors being proposed to replace 35mm film, could support 3-D perfectly, because of their high frame rates. They could actually display 3-D by projecting left and right eyes sequentially, at crazy high frame rates, which we perceive as simultaneous. So I figured this would mean that a whole new era of 3-D was now possible, and that our humble 3-D efforts would ride to market on the broad back of the digital cinema rollout, which was seen as imminent and inevitable.

It is ironic that half a decade later, the rollout is happening, but largely because it has been catalyzed by 3-D. D-cinema is riding 3-D to market. And that's because audiences are seeing something they like and are demonstrating a willingness to pay more for it. The new 3-D, this stereo renaissance, not only solves all the old problems of bad projection, eyestrain, etc., but it is being used on first-class movies that are on people's must-see lists. These are fundamental changes from what happened with the flash-in-the-pan 3-D craze of the '50s. 3-D is also a chance to rewrite the rules, to raise ticket prices for a tangible reason, for demonstrable value-added.

Quick definition of terms: I say stereo instead of 3-D, because I deal with so many CG artists who are accustomed to using the term "3-D" as a CG term of art. So I use stereo, a shortened form of stereoscopic, instead, so there is no confusion. However, when dealing with the public, I say 3-D, because they know what that means in that context -- they're going to get to wear the glasses and see something really cool.

Are there any myths about 3-D you'd like to dispel?

I sort of hit the myths one by one in the answers to the questions below.

Trailers and TV commercials are important for marketing, and homevideo is a vital revenue stream, yet right now there's no 3-D TV and you can't always count on trailers being seen in 3-D. How do you handle that as the film's director?

All films are made to serve many masters. Every director knows his film will be seen by more people on DVD or network TV on a small screen than in a theater. Does that change the way we direct? Not much. First and foremost the film must be a good movie. It needs to be firing on all eight cylinders whether it is conceived as a 2-D or a 3-D film. As a result, a 3-D film when screened in 2-D, on a screen of any size, should still deliver. The 3-D should always be thought of as a turbocharger, an enhancer, to a work whose raison d'etre is vested in its story, its characters, its style, etc.

In any case, with the number of screens currently available in North America, and certainly for some years to come internationally, it will be necessary to release in 3-D and 2-D day and date. So the film must be fully competitive as a 2-D title as well. Before I decided to make a major movie in 3-D, I had to resolve to my own satisfaction that the 3-D would not degrade in any measurable way the 2-D viewing experience. Could I shoot the same way? Would the camera placement or lighting be compromised? Could I cut as fast? Etc. Only when I had done enough 3-D production and testing to answer these questions was I willing to proceed.

As for 3-D in the home: The only limitation to having stereo viewing in the home is the number of titles currently available. When there is more product, the consumer electronics companies will make monitors and players. The technology exists and is straightforward. Samsung has already shipped 2 million plasma widescreens which can decode an excellent stereo image. There's just no player to hook up to it right now. They may be a little ahead of the curve in future-proofing their monitors, but it indicates how easy it would be for the big electronics companies to get onboard. It should be remembered that good 3-D requires a more immersive relationship between audience and screen. Unless you're willing to sit within 4 feet of a 50" monitor, which all but a few geeks (like me) will not do in a home setting, then you're not going to get the same bang for the buck out of a 3-D movie on a home system as you would in a theater, regardless of whether the resolution of the image is the same. So there may always be a greater distinction between seeing a 3-D movie at home vs. seeing a 2-D movie at home. Which is good. Because 3-D then becomes a technology which will help preserve the health of the theatrical exhibition business in a time when it is besieged.

Do you think it's possible to make a film that is too dependent on 3-D for the economics of today's movie business, and if so, how do you avoid that?

I don't think the economics of 3-D are clear yet, and won't be for a few years. So much depends on the number of screens, and more importantly (ultimately) the number of filmmakers who want to play in this new space, because the success of the 3-D renaissance is going to be content-driven. I think it is a mistake under any circumstances to make a film which is dependent on 3-D for its success, either aesthetically or commercially. The film should not be marketed first and foremost as a 3-D experience. The film should be sold on its merits (cast, story, imagery, etc.) and the consumer should be informed that they can purchase the experience in 2-D or, for a couple extra bucks, in 3-D. It should be like ordering at Starbucks. Lots of choices. If the new media of the last decade has taught us anything, it is that people like choices, and they like control.

WORKING IN 3-D:

How do you shoot differently because of 3-D?

On "Avatar," I have not consciously composed my shots differently for 3-D. I am just using the same style I always do. In fact, after the first couple of weeks, I stopped looking at the shots in 3-D while I was working, even though the digital cameras allow real-time stereo viewing. I had someone else checking them for good stereo as we were shooting, in a small theater we set up near the stage for that purpose. I would get real-time feedback from my "golden-eyes" team in the theater, if a shot needed to be adjusted to increase or decrease the stereospace.

Having said that, I am not above milking a good 3-D moment, as long as it doesn't interrupt the narrative flow. And there are a couple of minor adjustments that need to be made to lighting and camera placement to create a smooth and unobtrusive stereo experience. But once you learn these few tricks, you stop thinking much about them.

In general I found that good lighting was good lighting, and worked quite well in 3-D. Wide lenses are fun in 3-D, but long lenses work well, too. The Fusion cameras can dynamically shift from hypo-stereo, which is to say less than normal interocular distance, (the distance between the left eye and the right eye lenses) for closeups -- to hyper-stereo (wider than normal) for long lens shots where the subject is relatively far away. The new cameras work well on Steadicam, on cranes and dollies, on SpiderCam and Cablecam rigs, and work very well handheld. So all the normal types of shots can be done. I compose the shots on a 2-D monitor, while in the back of my mind I'm imagining it in 3-D. That way I know I'm always making a good 2-D movie as I go along. I also edit in 2-D, for the same reason.

Someone told me that "Citizen Kane" was a great example of how to shoot for 3-D: great depth of field, wide-angle lenses, etc.

I think it's a myth that you want deep focus in 3-D shots. I find the opposite is true. Selective focus, created by working at low f-stops with longer lenses, evolved as a cinematic technique to direct the audience's attention to the character of greatest narrative importance at a given moment. With 3-D, the director needs to lead the audience's eye, not let it roam around the screen to areas which are not converged. So all the usual cinematic techniques of selective focus, separation lighting, composition, etc., that one would use in a 2-D film to direct the eye to the subject of interest, still apply, and are perhaps even more important. We all see the world in 3-D. The difference between really being witness to an event vs. seeing it as a stereo image is that when you're really there, your eye can adjust its convergence as it roves over subjects at different distances. Convergence is the natural toe-in that the eye does to align the left and right eye images of objects at specific planes of depth. In a filmed image, the convergence was baked in at the moment of photography, so you can't adjust it. In order to cut naturally and rapidly from one subject to another, it's necessary for the filmmaker (actually his/her camera team) to put the convergence at the place in the shot where the audience is most likely to look. This sounds complicated but in fact we do it all the time, in every shot, and have since the beginning of cinema. It's called focus. We focus where we think people are most likely to look. So I've found that just slaving the convergence function to the focus works exceedingly well, and makes good stereo a no-brainer on the set.

Every time I watch a movie lately, from "300" to "Atonement," I think how wonderful it would have been if shot in 3-D.

How does that third dimension change or complicate those directing techniques?

Shooting 3-D is more complicated, undeniably, because you're doing all the stuff you normally do (blocking, lighting, performance, etc.) plus dealing with stereospace. From a director's perspective, the camera team should be handling most of this, and the director need only get involved to the extent that they choose to, because they're excited by the new format and tools.

How does working in 3-D change the way you cut a film? The current trend toward very quick cuts, so popular now in action films, seems not to work in 3-D. Or does it?

The new cameras allow complete control over the stereospace. You should think of interocular like volume. You can turn the 3-D up or down, and do it smoothly on the fly during a shot. So if you know you're in a scene which will require very fast cuts, you turn the stereo down (reduce the interocular distance) and you can cut fast and smoothly. The point here is that just because you're making a stereo movie doesn't mean that stereo is the most important thing in every shot or sequence. If you choose to do rapid cutting, then the motion of the subject from shot to shot to shot is more important than the perception of stereospace at that moment in the film. So sacrifice the stereospace and enjoy the fast cutting. Stereo is just another color to paint with, and the new camera tools allow complete control. I think it takes a few frames, maybe the better part of a second, for the eye to properly assimilate the stereospace of a shot. If the shot only lasts 18 frames, you're not getting much value out of the 3-D, so let that drop down in priority below the flow of the motion.

The real issue here is that when you're shooting action photographically (as opposed to CG animation) you can't predict at the moment of shooting exactly how you're going to cut, so it pays to be conservative on the stereospace. In a CG action sequence, you can pump the stereo up a bit more because you can optimize each shot after the scene is cut. The interocular continues to be malleable up to the final render of a CG shot, but it gets baked into a photographic shot the moment you pull the trigger and can't be changed later.

Does directing in 3-D require that the director and producer have a thorough grasp of the technology, or is this something an inexperienced director could mostly delegate to a d.p. and stereographer the way a writer or actor turned director might delegate camera angles and lighting to the d.p.?

Most directors couldn't load a film magazine or balance a Steadicam to save their lives. But that doesn't stop them from using these tools brilliantly. Stereo should be thought of in the same way. A good, experienced camera team which has shot a stereo movie using the new tools should be able to make the stereo as invisible to the director as focus. Meaning, sometimes the director gets asked where they want the focus in a shot, or the director may have an idea before the fact to do something stylized, but generally it just gets taken care of by the camera team. I do believe in the need for a "stereographer" to assist the d.p. This should be an experienced person who watches each and every image as it is laid down, and advises the director and d.p. regarding the stereospace decisions, based on what they're seeing at the moment.

Of course many filmmakers will be drawn to shooting in 3-D because it is fun, new and challenging, and they will meet that challenge by learning the ins and outs themselves, and learning-by-doing how and when to push the envelope. Fortunately, the new 3-D cameras are able to meet their revolutionary performance specs, that no film camera could dream of matching, because they are HD. So that immediate real-time stereo image is there for the filmmaker to experiment with.

And every single director will approach 3-D in their own way, and use it differently. So even though I believe that a standardized methodology is necessary for widespread adoption, that methodology needs to be open to the creativity of the individual filmmaker.

DIRECTING ACTORS:

Last year Variety did an article on how digital capture changes the way actors work (The actors said no reloading means fewer breaks to prepare, much more continuous shooting, more of their process recorded for posterity so they have to have less ego). I've recently talked to the "Beowulf" vfx team, which said performance capture let them shoot very fast, with very little downtime for the cast. They were moving so quickly that the actors had to ask for breaks to work on lines, because they weren't expecting to get to the next scene so soon.

I didn't experience that. We were doing lighting, figuring out shots, moving assets around in the CG environment on production days with actors. This took significantly longer than the smash-and-grab mo-cap techniques used previously. Also, I tend to spend a lot of time on performance, so nobody was complaining about the speed.

Does 3-D also change the way actors work or the way you work with actors, and if so, how?

I made it my mission to keep the 3-D out of the actors' consciousness completely. Most of them forgot we were shooting 3-D, because we did playback on set at a 2-D monitor. Every once in a while one of them would go over to the theater and watch some dailies, and come back wide-eyed. But it really didn't change a thing they were doing on set. As a director, my work with the actors was not affected in the slightest by the 3-D component of the shooting.

As for the lighting and photography, we found that the normal gutsy lighting that I like worked beautifully in 3-D. Every once in a while we would have to make an adjustment to hide or reduce "ghosting" of a bright light in the background. Ghosting is an artifact of projection, not photography, but we decided to mitigate it in the photography to improve the experience in the theater. Hopefully, as projector technology improves, we can forget about that.

Right now, 3-D is pretty much being used for films that have some spectacle in them, whether it's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" or "U2 3D"; nobody's talking about using it for domestic dramas. But there are people wondering whether it will actually enhance the impact of character-driven stories. What are your thoughts on how 3-D changes the experience of watching actors act?

I plan to shoot a small dramatic film in 3-D, just to prove this point, after "Avatar." In "Avatar," there are a number of scenes that are straight dramatic scenes, no action, no effects. They play very well, and in fact seem to be enhanced by the stereo viewing experience. So I think this can work for the full length of a dramatic feature. However, filmmakers and studios will have to weigh the added cost of shooting in 3-D against the increased marketing value for that type of film.

3-D POST AND PROJECTION:

We've only just seen an all-digital pipeline come into being.

I've been doing it since 2001.

What about an all-3-D pipeline?

You don't need to be in 3-D at every step of the way. And as long as your work will be viewed in 2-D as well as 3-D, whether in a hybrid theatrical release or later on DVD, it is probably healthy to do a lot of the work in 2-D along the way. I cut on a normal Avid, and only when the scene is fine-cut do we output left and right eye video tracks to the server in the screening room and check the cut for stereo. Nine times out of 10 we don't change anything for 3-D. I operate most of the shots myself, including the handheld (I defer on the Steadicam shots), and we use 2-D monitors and eyepieces to operate. On-set playback is in 2-D. A shot is judged on the merits of performance, operating, lighting, etc., and not 3-D. I think this is a healthy approach.

Where is the existing pipeline working well and where do things still need to be improved -- or invented -- in 3-D production and post?

3-D post is mature and pretty straightforward. If the material is shot properly, you don't need to do much to "fix it in post." Witness the Hannah Montana concert movie, which was posted in less than three months. The visual effects pipeline could use some good stereo tools, to aid in compositing.

I'm hearing that there are already calls to increase the frame rate to at least 30 fps for digital 3-D because certain camera moves, especially pans, look jumpy in 3-D. I saw that in the Imax 3-D "Beowulf." You've been an advocate for both 3-D and higher frame rates. Have you seen the problem and do you have any thoughts on it?

For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It's also easily fixed, because the stereo renaissance is enabled by digital cinema, and digital cinema supplies the answer to the strobing problem.

The DLP chip in our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. The maximum data rate currently supports stereo at 24 frames per second or 2-D at 48 frames per second. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that's already installed or being installed.

Increasing the data-handling capacity of the projectors and servers is not a big deal, if there is demand. I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So why aren't we doing it, as an industry?

Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all.

If every single digital theater was perceived by the audience as being equivalent to Imax or Showscan in image quality, which is readily achievable with off-the-shelf technology now, running at higher frame rates, then isn't that the same kind of marketing hook as 3-D itself? Something you can't get at home. An aspect of the film that you can't pirate.

Other than that, for digital 3-D, would you rather see energy going into moving from 2K to 4K, or into moving from 24 fps to 48 or 72 fps, and why?

4K is a concept born in fear. When the studios were looking at converting to digital cinemas, they were afraid of change, and searched for reasons not to do it. One reason they hit upon was that if people were buying HD monitors for the home, with 1080x1920 resolution, and that was virtually the same as the 2K standard being proposed, then why would people go to the cinema? Which ignores the fact that the social situation is entirely different, and that the cinema screen is 100 times larger in area. So they somehow hit on 4K, which people should remember is not twice the amount of picture data, it is four times the data. Meaning servers need to be four times the capacity, as does the delivery pipe to the theater, etc.

But 4K doesn't solve the curse of 24 frames per second. In fact it tends to stand in the way of the solutions to that more fundamental problem. The NBA execs made a bold decision to do the All Star Game 3-D simulcast at 60 frames per second, because they didn't like the judder. The effect of the high-frame-rate 3-D was visually astonishing, a huge crowdpleaser.

I would vastly prefer to see 2K/48 frames per second as a new display standard, than 4K/24 frames per second. This would mean shooting movies at 48 fps, which the digital cameras can easily accommodate. Film cameras can run that fast, but stock costs would go up. However, that could be offset by shooting 3-perf, or even 2-perf, because you'd get the resolution back through the higher display rate. The 48 fps negative or digital master can be skip-printed to generate a 24 fps 35mm DI negative for making release prints, so 48 is the magic number because it remains compatible with the film-based platform which will still be with us for some time, especially internationally. 30 and 60 fps are out for that reason. Anyway the benefit of 30 is not great enough to be worth the effort, especially when 48 is so easy to achieve. SMPTE tests done about 15 years ago showed that above 48 frames the returns diminish dramatically, and 60 fps is overkill. So 48 is the magic number.

Of course, the ideal format is 3-D/2K/48 fps projection. I'd love to have done "Avatar" at 48 frames. But I have to fight these battles one at a time. I'm just happy people are waking up to 3-D.

Maybe on "Avatar 2."

It's turning out that 3-D that's optimized for one screen size doesn't look right if the screen gets a lot bigger or smaller.* One potential solution would be correction built into the software at the projector, but the people I've spoken to who actually make 3-D movies think that these are creative decisions and different 3-D masters will be needed for different screen sizes. Do you think this is something you would ultimately trust to software or will you need to do it yourself?

*(Specifically, the interocular changes by the same multiplier as the screen size. Double the screen size and the interocular doubles too, and can be so big that it's difficult for the eye to resolve the stereo. On the other hand, cut the screen size in half and the stereo effect flattens out.)

I don't agree with this at all. I think the effect you are describing has more to do with the fact that people tend to sit farther from monitors than they do from cinema screens, when calculated as a ratio of viewer distance to screen width. If you sit close to a good stereo monitor, like the Samsung I demo'ed a few months ago, the stereo effect is the same as a cinema screen. The stereo effect even works on smaller monitors. The advantage of small individual monitors, like laptops, is that they will be available as autostereoscopic displays, meaning no glasses. I've seen demos of these, and the effect is good. The ones I saw just suffered from low frame rates (flicker), but they'll work that out.

I certainly would never change the stereospace of a film to fit different screen sizes. In fact, for photographic films, it can't be changed. The interocular is set at the moment of photography. People will tell you they can fix it later, in post, by changing the convergence, but they are wrong. Convergence does not change stereospace, it only changes the ease with which viewers can fuse a shot after it appears onscreen.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that 10 or 15 years from now, stereo displays will be ubiquitous, from cinemas to open-air advertising, to home screens and down to handheld devices. IPhones will be in stereo. Small displays will especially benefit from stereo because the small size of the screen can be offset by using Z-depth to stack information, which will reduce visual clutter, or conversely increase the density of information held within a single visual field. It may be that eventually all of our news and information, as well as our sports and entertainment, will come to us in stereo.

In the future world shown in "Avatar," all display devices, including handheld devices and even photos, are all in 3-D.

We evolved to see in 3-D for a reason. It made us better hunters, or allowed us to spot and avoid predators. Why wouldn't we want this Darwinian edge in our workplace, in our sports and entertainment, in all our peak visual experiences?

You know what I think.

-- Jim out

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.searchenginewatch.com%2Fblog%2Fimg%2Favatar-poster.jpg&hash=f82f3e8da13a058ad221d4cfe93b614b9142ac91)

James Cameron Live on "Avatar" - His New 3-D Film
Source: searchenginewatch.com

The theme of Microsoft Advance '08 is "Connected Entertainment:" mobile, music, TV/video, gaming. The big Live Search announcement will be covered live tomorrow.

Today, filmmaker James Cameron's producing partner at Lightstorm Entertainment, Jon Landau said the abundance of digital information and the ability to use technologies opened up a whole new window for Jim didn't know e3xisted.

James Cameron started making films when they were photochemical emulsions. Now, films are digital.

"The essence of storytelling stays the same," said Cameron. "Intense CG (computer-generated) scenes with multiple shots doesn't change that. My greatest horror was the best thing we create would end up like Ark of Covenant and put in a warehouse somewhere. I will make all my films in 3-D. I've been banging on the door at Microsoft since I introduced Windows Media 9 with LL Cool J and Bill Gates in 2002. Now I tell them, this is what you guys need to be doing. I'm going to continue to surf that wave."

His new film, Avatar, features a man who tries to become a miner by combining his being with an alien during an interplanetary war in which aliens can manifest themselves through human bodies — avatars.

"'Avatar' will make people truly experience something," said Cameron."One more layer of the suspension of disbelief will be removed. All the syn-thespians are photo-realistic. Now that we've achieved it, we discovered CG characters in 3D look more real than in 2D. Your brain is cued it's a real thing not a picture and discounting part of image that makes it look fake."

Part of the movie is subtitled because it takes place on alien planet.

Avatar will have a human heart beating at its narrative center. It's an emotional journey of redemption and revolution; the story of a wounded ex-marine, who's thrust into an effort to settle and exploit an exotic planet rich in bio-diversity. He eventually crosses over to lead the indigenous race in a battle for survival.

Cameron has created an entire world, a complete ecosystem of phantasmagorical plants and creatures, and a native people with a rich culture and language. The film has a December 2009 release date.

"I don't know whether will be great film from narrative and critical standpoint," said Cameron. "The experience of Avatar will be an experience unlike any other movies."

He started with Microsoft Research looking at the way people see. The project soon moved out of the realm of speculation.

"'Avatar' is the single most complex piece of filmmaking ever made," said Cameron. "We have 1,600 shots for a 2.5 hour movie. It's not with a single CGI character, like King Kong or Gollum. We have hundreds of photo-realistic CG characters. We were Microsoft's sandbox for filmmaking beyond the cutting edge."

During the film he would grab chairs, gather his team, and talk about what they were doing wrong, how to do it better. That just isn't done on a film set.

The heart of the film technology is a digital asset management system created by Microsoft, which was praised by Cameron and Landau for understanding the arts and filmmaking. The system can track every cloud and every blade of CGI grass in the film.

Cameron noted that Titanic was about how technology let us down. He has always tried to be on cutting edge of what's going on. The Abyss featured the first photo-realistic CG character. Then "The Terminator" combined CG and human actors. "True Lies" pushed the bar even higher with composite technology.

In "Titanic" as a filmmaker, I struck the perfect balance of technology and the human heart," said Cameron. "I haven't forgotten that lesson with Avatar. It's the best lesson for any filmmaker."

Cameron also noted the radical changes in film distribution and made a prediction for the future:

"I'm on the fourth screen. The giant screen. Then it scatters down to other screens. It gets more interesting as more means of digital distribution become available to us. The interesting thing the actual movie business going strong. If valued up revenues of what's lost to piracy, movies doing better now than they ever have. You can have HD screen in your home.
He noted, "Windows organized things spatially. That gave it its power. But we're not displaying things spatially. What could happen is now that digital cinema revolution has taken place is killer app is 3D. Dreamworks has announced all its animated films will be made and projected in 3-D. Gaming will be changed by 3-D. Consumer electronics people will need to make players stereo-enabled monitors. Future version of Windows should be fully stereoscopic. Smaller devices already are 3D enabled without glasses. If you play "Avatar" on a 50 inch monitor, you're in the game."

Cameron said, "This is the ultimate immersive media. It's my fundamental belief that when you're viewing media in stereo, more neurons are firing, learning rates are higher. Engagement levels are higher. As advertisers, you need to think about how you're going to use this new dimension. How will you use the deeper levels of engagement?"

James Cameron's 'Avatar' creating tech buzz
3-D project using visionary new techniques
Source: Hollywood Reporter

With 17 months to go before the release of James Cameron's sci-fi epic "Avatar," his first narrative feature since 1997's "Titanic," anticipation already is enormous. The wildly ambitious project will be made in stereoscopic 3-D and combine live action and computer animation using visionary new filmmaking techniques.

Slated to open Dec. 18, 2009, the production already has been in the works for 2 1/2 years. When completed, Cameron expects "Avatar" to be about 60% CG animation, based on characters created using a newly developed performance capture-based process, and 40% live action, with a lot of VFX in the imagery.

"It is the most challenging film I've ever made," Cameron said.

Still, the innovative filmmaker and digital 3-D pioneer and champion has never shifted his emphasis from storytelling.

"You have to make a good film that would be a good film under any circumstances," he said. "You have to put the narrative first. The reality is no matter how many (3-D) screens we get, you are still going to have a large number of people -- possibly the majority of people -- who see the film in a 2-D environment."

The live-action principal photography for "Avatar" was shot in New Zealand last fall and winter using the Fusion 3-D camera system. Cameron first used the Fusion to make his 2003 Imax 3-D film "Ghosts of the Abyss"; he and "Ghosts" director of photography Vince Pace invented the camera system for the project.

Now, Fusion camera systems are available for rental via Burbank-based 3-D provider Pace, through which president Vince Pace and Cameron continue to innovate and develop the technology. The system already has made its mark, having been used on such pioneering live-action digital 3-D titles as "Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert" and "Journey to the Center of the Earth."

Said Pace: "The systems themselves, in my opinion, can handle any creative challenge. We've learned a lot since shooting 'Ghosts of the Abyss.' "

With "Avatar's" principal photography completed, Cameron is focused on CG production. The helmer said his team has completed the performance capture (sometimes referred to as motion capture) of the actors and is in the post process of performance capture 3-D.

The CG involved a large amount of additional R&D that afforded the director new creative options and flexibility. For one, the film used a new performance capture production workflow.

"The way we developed the performance capture workflow on 'Avatar" is we have our virtual camera, which allows me to, in real time, hold a camera -- it's really a monitor -- in my hands and point it at the actors and see them as their CG chartacters," Cameron said.

The actors wear leotards and a "head rig" with a tiny standard-definition camera that takes an image of an actor's face. "That is going though facial algorithms and going back into the camera as a real-time CG face of the character," the helmer said. "You see it talk; you see the eyes move. It is pretty phenomenal.

"Once we've laid down a take, the take exists in the digital asset management system," he said. "It an be accessed at any time. Long after the actors have gone home, I'm still out there with the virtual camera, shooting coverage on the scene. I just have to play the take back. I can do the close up, the wide shot. ... I can even move them around on a limited basis. We relight it. We do all kinds of things.

"It's this amazing ability to quickly conjure scenes and images and great fantasyscapes that is very visual. We call it 'director centric' because I can use the camera to block the actors," Cameron related. "When you are doing performance capture, creatively it's very daunting. It's very hard to imagine what it will look like. But if you can see it, if you can have a virtual image of what is it going to be like, then you are there. As the processing power goes up our models get more sophisticated and our lighting tools get more sophisticated, even while we are making this movie. I'm still doing a lot of virtual camera work on the film ... on stuff that was shot six months ago."

Cameron also used what he calls FPR, or Facial Performance Replacement, which he likens to the film sound technique of ADR (Automated Dialogue Replacement).

To describe the process, the director relates that he recently wanted to redo a line spoken by actor Laz Alonzo. "We changed the words and he redid the dialogue. We didn't have to recapture (his body performance) and he didn't have to put the performance capture suit on again. We were just creating new words, and we were creating a new face."

On the cinematography, Cameron related that his goal was to create "one movie where the aesthetics of physical production and the aesthetics of virtual production are, to the extent that we could do it, pretty much it identical."

Reaching this goal involved development of what Cameron calls the 'Simulcam,' which essentially treats a real camera like the virtual camera and in turn helps to remove guesswork. "We're taking our virtual production toolset and superimposing it on physical production," Cameron said. "We turned the set on the soundstage into a capture volume and turned the physical camera into a capture virtual camera, so we were able to integrate CG characters and environments into our live action."

As an example of how this works, he explained: "We have people in flying vehicles, and I can see what is outside the window, fed in, in real time."

On 3-D, both Cameron and Pace are looking ahead.

"The real question is 'where does all this go?" Cameron said. "Are we looking at a situation maybe 10-15 years out where most laptops are sold with 3-D stereoscopic screens, most montors are stereo compatible, most DVD players can run stereo content? ... I can see this becoming much more pervasive that we are thinking now."

He and Pace believe content is the key.

Pace addressed one last--and not often addressed--aspect of 3-D: The archival value.

"I think back of our shots at Titanic (lensed for "Ghosts of the Abyss"). Those have incredible, future proof, archival value," Pace said. "When we look at (3-D) display devices in the home (which are already becoming available)--a lot of filmmakers and studios need to be making 3-D right now. Those production commitments are often based on the here and now, instead of thinking about how much value there is to this 3-D product in the future. Why not master in 3-D now if there is only an incremental expense? Why not think about that now?"

Quote from: James Cameron
"It's this amazing ability to quickly conjure scenes and images and great fantasyscapes that is very visual. We call it 'director centric' because I can use the camera to block the actors."

PREDICTION: David Fincher will employ this technology in his next movie.

Bigger than Titanic?
Director Cameron says his next film, Avatar, far beyond anything he has ever done
By ANDREA BAILLIE, THE CANADIAN PRESS

James Cameron famously crowned himself "king of the world" after his epic film Titanic swept the Oscars a decade ago.

But as the director heads to Canada for this weekend's Walk of Fame celebrations, he boasts that his watery 1997 blockbuster starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet pales in comparison to his latest project, Avatar.

"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.

The scope of Avatar, which reunites Cameron with Aliens star Sigourney Weaver, is perhaps not surprising. After all, the filmmaker, who was born in the mining town of Kapuskasing, Ont., and raised near Niagara Falls, Ont., has pushed the envelope throughout his career.

He burst onto the movie-making scene with the 1984 box-office monster The Terminator, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton, whom Cameron went on to marry and divorce (he's currently married to wife No. 5, Titanic star Suzy Amis).

After the success of The Terminator, Cameron helmed True Lies and The Abyss, all the while developing a reputation as a visionary filmmaker with a legendary temper (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is rumoured to have burst into tears on the set of The Abyss after Cameron suggested extras urinate into their wetsuits to save time).

His domineering presence on the set of Titanic became the stuff of film legend. But after making the biggest box- office success of all time, Cameron turned his attention to documentaries.

"I got involved in 3-D, doing 3-D documentaries, natural history, deep ocean exploration stuff, and at that point I sort of decided I didn't want to go back to non-stereoscopic moviemaking, but then there was a lag time while the theatres didn't exist yet," said Cameron.

"I decided to work on a very large project that would take time to develop properly and design all the elements of the world, to give them time to get the theatres in place. Now the timing seems to be working out quite well. In the meantime, I was having fun doing ocean expeditions."

Avatar, a futuristic thriller about humans battling a race on a distant planet, was written 14 years ago, Cameron says.

A three-month live-action shoot has already been completed in New Zealand and the director is now labouring over the other 60% of the film, using cutting-edge techniques.

Cameron is clearly exhilarated by the challenge.

"It's this form of pure creation where ... if you want to move a tree or a mountain or the sky or change the time of day, you have complete control over the elements and the production design," he said.

As for the Walk of Fame ceremonies, where Cameron will be recognized in Toronto on Saturday alongside fellow Canucks including Michael J. Fox, k.d. lang and Bryan Adams, the man with a shelf full of Oscars says the accolade means a lot.

"It's not old hat because it's 'small-town boy makes good, gets to come back to his old neighbourhood.'

"It's not the same as getting an accolade anywhere else."

"I enjoy the fact that this is taking place in Canada. ... Getting some acknowledgment back home is always a sweet thing, and don't let anybody tell you different."

Quote from: MacGuffin on September 08, 2008, 10:08:32 PM
"It's this form of pure creation where ... if you want to move a tree or a mountain or the sky or change the time of day, you have complete control over the elements and the production design," he said.

I would hate that.

why?

When I direct, I live for tactile things.  I find my direction from the things that are in front of me, and I make the movie about that.

People can make movies however they want, and total control is a legitimate way to make movies.  I can't stand the idea director as God for myself, and if I was ever making a movie where I could move mountains and trees and change the weather... I wouldn't know what I was even making that movie for.  I want to HUNT, and how can I do that in earnest when I have that kind of total control?

Maybe I'm just not very creative.  The best parts of the movies that I've been a part of came from limitations or unexpected problems.  I'm always thankful when the movies aren't like the vision in my head, because that would be pretty dead and boring.

:yabbse-thumbup:

Cameron's 'Avatar' to get 3-D release
Imax, Fox deal for Christmas 2009 film
Source: Variety

Imax Corp. and 20th Century Fox have pacted to release James Cameron's Christmas 2009 tentpole "Avatar" on Imax 3-D screens at the same that it opens in conventional 3-D theaters.

Fox said deal allows "Avatar" to be released in all available theatrical formats.

"Our goal with 'Avatar' is to revolutionize live-action 3-D moviemaking, and I have no doubt that it will look and sound incredible in Imax 3-D," Cameron said in endorsing the move.

Cameron and Jon Landau's Lightstorm Entertainment are producing the big-budget tentpole, which unspools in theaters Dec. 19.

Fox prexy of distribution Bruce Snyder said showing "Avator" in Imax theaters gives the consumer the entire spectrum of choice.

This summer, many people saw Warner Bros.' "The Dark Knight" both in regular theaters and in Imax locations.

Next year brings a multitude of 3-D releases, in addition to "Avatar," although there still aren't enough digital 3-D screens in conventional theaters to sustain that amount of product.

First image:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F12%2Fjames-cameron-sam-worthington-%282%29.jpg&hash=95336a271599df0bcb71e3ff05c46d94ed0648ca)

Second image:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F01%2Favatartimes.jpg&hash=d09ccc91053d2e8846b4ad72b2bcfbc7f743971e)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F01%2F12%2Fbusiness%2F12film01-500.jpg&hash=b0dd75ff602b69a643fac5760bf5c3d88c506380)

Hollywood Finds Headaches in Its Big Bet on 3-D
Source: NYTimes

LOS ANGELES — The imminent full-bore return to 3-D filmmaking, upon which the movie industry is placing many of its hopes, is in danger of becoming Hollywood's latest flub.  Some of the mightiest forces in film — Jeffrey Katzenberg, James Cameron, John Lasseter — think the multiplex masses will soon demand that all movies be shown in newly available digital 3-D. Mr. Katzenberg, in particular, has pushed the format, trotting the globe to herald the technology as a transformative moment for cinema akin to the introduction of sound.

His bandwagon has plenty of passengers, at least in Hollywood. The Walt Disney Company alone has 15 three-dimensional movies in its pipeline. Twentieth Century Fox is betting an estimated $200 million on "Avatar," a 3-D space adventure directed by Mr. Cameron and set for December release, his first nondocumentary film since 1997's "Titanic," still the biggest moneymaker in movie history, without counting inflation. All told, the movie factory has over 30 3-D pictures on the way.

But analysts are starting to warn that all of that product could find itself sitting on a loading dock with no place to go. Studios, thrilled by 3-D's dual promises of higher profits and artistic advancement, have aggressively embraced the technology without waiting for movie theaters to get on board. And without those expensive upgrades to projection equipment at the multiplex, mass market 3-D releases are not tenable.

"It's starting to look like there will be a lot of disappointed producers unable to realize the upside of these 3-D investments," said Harold L. Vogel, a media analyst and the author of "Entertainment Industry Economics." Filming in 3-D adds about $15 million to production costs, he said, but can send profit soaring because of premium ticket pricing.

Only about 1,300 of North America's 40,000 or so movie screens support digital 3-D. (Imax adds 250.) Overseas, where films now generate up to 70 percent of their theatrical revenue, only a few hundred theaters can support the technology. It costs about $100,000 for each full upgrade.

Studios require about 3,000 screens in North America for most new releases. Popcorn movies like "Avatar" or "Monsters vs. Aliens," a 3-D entry from DreamWorks Animation, typically open on more than 4,000 screens.

"The crunch has everybody scrambling," said Chuck Viane, president for domestic distribution for Walt Disney Studios. "We had expected many more screens to be available by now, no doubt about it."

Upgrades have lagged primarily because of industry infighting over who will shoulder the cost. Studios expected theaters to take the lead because digital equipment would allow them to raise prices — tickets to the new crop of 3-D movies run as high as $25 each — and lure consumers away from their big-screen living room TVs. Exhibitors, hurt by soaring real estate costs, wanted studios to pay for similar reasons.

Movie chains and four of the six major studios agreed in September on a plan to convert upward of 15,000 theaters using $1 billion in debt financing arranged through JPMorgan Chase. But the squabbling took too long: The financing plan came together just as the credit markets froze.

Studios and exhibitors say the upgrade plan is not in jeopardy.

"This is a long-term commitment and a long-term strategy," Mr. Katzenberg, the chief of DreamWorks, said recently.

Meanwhile, the Digital Cinema Implementation Partners, a consortium of exhibitors and studios, is pursuing alternative financing to allow the plan to proceed in steps. "Rather than just being patient, we are aggressively exploring all options," said Rich Manzione, the group's vice president for strategic planning.

Other participants seem less optimistic. Will the credit markets thaw in the first quarter, as Mr. Katzenberg predicts? "Your guess is as good as mine," said Mike Campbell, the chief executive of the Regal Entertainment Group, which owns the nation's largest movie theater chain.

Meanwhile, the shortage of 3-D theaters is upsetting profit projections at various studios, with three-dimensional movies probably leaving millions of dollars on the table. When DreamWorks Animation releases "Monsters vs. Aliens" on March 27, it will have to settle for half the number of 3-D screens it wanted. While acknowledging the shortage, Mr. Katzenberg recently told analysts there were enough theaters available to "recover our upfront investment and make a profit."

To get an idea of how much money is at stake, DreamWorks Animation recently estimated that one of its hit titles, released entirely in 3-D, would earn an additional $80 million in profit.

The shortage is sending mixed messages to moviegoers, many of whom are already skeptical of the claims about 3-D. Because of a shortage of outlets last summer, Warner Brothers had to scramble to change the marketing for "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D" — dropping "3D" from the title — and offer a two-dimensional release in tandem. Lionsgate will have just 900 3-D theaters available for "My Bloody Valentine 3D" on Jan. 16, forcing the studio to show a standard version on about 1,600 screens.

The delay is also threatening to undercut one of the primary benefits for theaters — the ability to deliver an experience that consumers cannot replicate at home. But the home entertainment market is rapidly catching up, with companies developing 3-D options for the home.

RealD, a California company that is the lead provider of 3-D technology for theaters, last week demonstrated a similar product for televisions at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Michael Lewis, the chief executive of RealD, said in an interview that he expected Americans to own 10 million 3-D-capable television sets within five years.

People who remember 3-D from the 1950s roll their eyes at Hollywood's renewed fascination with the medium. They associate 3-D with cheesy films ("Creature From the Black Lagoon"), stiff cardboard glasses and jerky, stomach-turning camera movements.

This time, movie executives insist that everything has changed. Digital projectors deliver the images with perfect precision — eliminating headaches and nausea — while plastic glasses have replaced the cardboard.

Most important, say filmmakers, new equipment allows movies to be built in 3-D from the ground up, providing a more immersive and realistic viewing experience and not one based just on visual gimmicks.

Cameron Nixes Avatar Trailers?
All the latest buzz on the upcoming 3-D sci-fi epic.

Oscar-winning director James Cameron is rumored to be displeased with the trailers that have thus far been cut for his forthcoming sci-fi epic Avatar.

According to MarketSaw, eight trailers "have already been made for Avatar and all of them failed the test with James Cameron. He is hard at work prepping his own trailer for the masses as he knows the first trailer has to be done right."

MarketSaw adds that clips from Avatar may be shown at the upcoming Showest trade show running March 30-April 2 in Las Vegas.

In related news, DVD Town claims that "Panasonic could be working close with James Cameron on his Avatar as the first Blu-ray release to feature the company's 3D technology." The site adds that Avatar could be out on Blu-ray by Easter 2010.

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 10, 2009, 04:40:12 PM
According to MarketSaw, eight trailers "have already been made for Avatar and all of them failed the test with James Cameron. He is hard at work prepping his own trailer for the masses as he knows the first trailer has to be done right."

Why do I get the feeling that half of James Cameron's trailer is going to consist of behind-the-scenes shots of James Cameron directing?

Quote from: polkablues on March 10, 2009, 04:57:35 PM

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 10, 2009, 04:40:12 PM
According to MarketSaw, eight trailers "have already been made for Avatar and all of them failed the test with James Cameron. He is hard at work prepping his own trailer for the masses as he knows the first trailer has to be done right."

Why do I get the feeling that half of James Cameron's trailer is going to consist of behind-the-scenes shots of James Cameron directing?

haha. that's what the eventual whole movie is going to be. Just a behind the scenes making of about a movie that James Cameron made that he's not allowing us to see.

It'll be rife with lots of scenes of Jim Cameron acting like a pompous jerkoff to his cast and crew and berating the audience for not being smart enough to get it.

Titanic was pretty much the worst thing to ever happen if you think about it. I mean, the movie and the natural disaster, of course.

Man I can't wait to see this trailer, but I don't understand why the hell he gives some company the footage to cut a teaser/trailer, he shoulda pull a Kubrick and do everything by himself from the start (marketing wise), including the poster!

'Avatar' update: Cameron hasn't rejected any trailers
Source: Los Angeles Times

I guess the top brass at 20th Century Fox missed the jocular tone in my previous post about the blogosphere rumor going around about Jim Cameron rejecting a string of possible trailers for "Avatar," his long-awaited sci-fi thriller.

For the record guys, I was being sarcastic, and there was a reason I described the original MarketSaw blog post as "not exactly the kind of story you'd take to the bank," adding that it "was essentially a rumor-mill item."

Sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in print, so let me be more plain: I thought it was intriguing -- coming on the heels of the blogosphere uproar over "Watchmen" -- that "Avatar" was already under the Internet microscope nine full months before its release. But did any of the posts persuade me that Jim Cameron had already rejected eight trailers and had started cutting his own? Not so much.

Just in case there was any doubt that the online uproar over the trailers was, shall we say, premature, Fox Co-Chairman Jim Gianopulos got on the phone to knock the rumors out of the park. "Jim Cameron has never seen any trailer cuts for the simple reason that they haven't gone to him yet," Gianopulos said, after admonishing me for running the speculation in the first place. "While the film's footage is essentially complete, key sequences haven't yet been rendered into the photo-realistic CG images that are now being worked on. This is the normal sequence of the production and is necessary in order to make a final trailer."

So there. "Avatar" fans can safely step away from the ledge. (OK, that's me being sarcastic again.) Once Cameron is finished laboring over the film's complicated technical components, he'll have something to show us. We're all on the edge of our seats, waiting with bated breath. (No, that wasn't sarcasm -- that was genuine enthusiasm.)

Avatar's James Cameron refutes rumors, offers update
Source: SciFi Wire

Avatar director James Cameron wrote Ain't It Cool News to shoot down several recent rumors about the movie, including one that he had rejected eight proposed trailers and another that he planned to unspool a trailer at the upcoming ShoWest convention in Las Vegas. Cameron also updated the site on the secretive film's progress.

"As usual the rumor mill is grinding out mostly spurious stuff," Cameron wrote AICN. "I have no plans at present to go to Showest, and in any event we have decided not to unveil material there."

Cameron added: "As to the trailer story, I have no idea where that came from, but I haven't rejected any trailers (yet), since I haven't seen any yet. They're still working on them for presentation, which presumably will be soon. I'm sure I'll reject a couple once I have the chance. Right now I'm just focused on having a movie to sell."

More than 10 years in the making, Avatar marks Cameron's return to fictional feature-film directing for the first time since 1997's Titanic. The 3-D Avatar centers on ex-marine Jake Sully, who is torn between duty and honor when he finds himself caught in a battle between the heavily armed forces of Earth's most powerful star-faring consortium and an exotic, noble alien race whose entire world is threatened by the human invaders.

"The cut is shaping up nicely and the stuff coming in from Weta Digital is astonishing," Cameron wrote AICN. "Every once in a while, as we are absorbed in some intensely detailed discussion about sub-surface scattering or the way a tail is moving in the animation, I'll just stop and have this moment of clarity, as if seeing it for the first time. And I realize that's what the lunar astronauts must have felt like. They'd be in the middle of some complex set of procedures, and they'd look out the window and go, 'Oh, yeah. That's the frickin' moon!' It feels like that."

Avatar stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana and Cameron's Aliens star Sigourney Weaver. It opens Dec. 18.

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 12, 2009, 11:42:15 AM
"Every once in a while, as we are absorbed in some intensely detailed discussion about sub-surface scattering or the way a tail is moving in the animation, I'll just stop and have this moment of clarity, as if seeing it for the first time. And I realize that's what the lunar astronauts must have felt like. They'd be in the middle of some complex set of procedures, and they'd look out the window and go, 'Oh, yeah. That's the frickin' moon!' It feels like that."

I long suspected that James Cameron had completely lost all perspective, but this confirms it.

Avatar's Michelle Rodriguez loves James Cameron, and f--k you if you don't  :yabbse-rolleyes:
Source: SciFi Wire

Michelle Rodriguez, who co-stars in James Cameron's secretive sci-fi film Avatar, told a group of reporters that the breadth of Cameron's direction was exhausting. "He thinks in 12 dimensions at all times, and that's what I love about him," Rodriguez said in a group interview on Friday in Hollywood, where she was promoting Fast & Furious.

Avatar combines new motion capture, animation and three-dimensional filming technology. Cameron has screened footage for select audiences in the 3-D industry.

The following Q&A features edited excerpts of our interview with the outspoken Rodriguez. Avatar is due in theaters Dec. 18, 2009.


What kind of character do you play in Avatar?

Rodriguez: I'm basically a pilot, a pilot in another planet.

How did you hook up with James Cameron?

Rodriguez: James saw me in Girlfight. It's that movie. It's the only movie I was ever a lead in, and I guess I did a good job because people watched it and liked it.

What sort of direction does Cameron give you?

Rodriguez: Are you f--king kidding me? That guy is so amazing. You could sit there and you could talk for hours about the advancements in molecular science or you could sit there and you can talk about mythology and story building, character building. You could talk about cameras, the history of film, history of Russia. You could talk about flying to another planet, you could talk about space research. You could talk about underwater adventures. You could talk about how he constructed special technology for underwater adventures. Or you could sit there and talk to him about how he developed his own fricking cameras with his brother. I mean, like, this guy is a genius.

How does the footage look?

Rodriguez: It's f--king amazing. It's hardcore. I can't even imagine anything bigger. This is the beauty of working with that technology. You just go there and you see what you're interacting with right there because it's a mixture of live 3-D footage, the props on the set and the virtual world that he spent God knows how long creating.

How would you deal with the high expectations for this film?

Rodriguez: I don't give a rat's ass how people receive whatever we did. I am just incredibly honored to have been seen by him and for him to like keep me in mind for a project that he's had for the last, what, eight years? To call me up and say, "Hey, I want you to be a part of this," because everybody was talking so much smack about me [for a DUI arrest in Hawaii, where she was filming Lost], and it's so hard to get a job when all these people are talking s--t about you in the press, just because you're growing up. You know, I used to poop in my pants, too, and I learned how to use the bathroom eventually. People were so hard on me, so it's really important for me to have individuals that get it, that know, that can see in my eyes or see me on screen and know what I'm capable of and not be scared to hire me because of some commercial hoopla that people are saying. That was very important.

Time magazine previews James Cameron's Avatar
Source: Sci Fi Wire

Time magazine has a new story about James Cameron's 3-D Avatar, with new details based on the writer's screening of early footage.

Here's part of Josh Quittner's story, which takes a broad look at upcoming 3-D movies:

"More than a thousand people have worked on [Avatar], at a cost in excess of [$200] million, and it represents digital filmmaking's bleeding edge. Cameron wrote the treatment for it in 1995 as a way to push his digital-production company to its limits. The movie pioneers two unrelated technologies—e-motion capture, which uses images from tiny cameras rigged to actors' heads to replicate their expressions, and digital 3-D.

"The film is set in the future, and most of the action takes place on a mythical planet, Pandora. The actors work in an empty studio; Pandora's lush jungle-aquatic environment is computer-generated in New Zealand by Jackson's special-effects company, Weta Digital, and added later.

"I couldn't tell what was real and what was animated--even knowing that the 9-foot-tall blue, dappled dude couldn't possibly be real. The scenes were so startling and absorbing that the following morning, I had the peculiar sensation of wanting to return there, as if Pandora were real."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1886541-1,00.html

New Avatar Tagline Revealed
Source: Edward Douglas
March 30, 2009

The Opening Day Luncheon for ShoWest was sponsored by IMAX, who showed a sizzle reel of recent and upcoming IMAX movies. They didn't show any footage from James Cameron's highly-anticipated Avatar, which will be opening in IMAX 3D on December 18, but they did reveal a new tagline for the film which hints on what to expect:

"An All New World Awaits"

One can probably expect the first trailer with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and maybe a teaser poster.

Cameron's sci-fi action-adventure stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel David Moore, CCH Pounder, Peter Mensah, Laz Alonso, Wes Studi, Stephen Lang and Matt Gerald.

Avatar tells the story of an 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.

Bad year for hyphens.

Hyphens just ain't as cool as colons. Sorry, Polk.

Book will reveal the art behind James Cameron's Avatar
Source: SciFi Wire

Amazon.com has listed a Nov. 1 release for the upcoming hardcover The Art of Avatar: James Cameron's Epic Adventure, about the making of James Cameron's 3-D sci-fi epic movie Avatar. The book's description also offers a few spoilers about the movie's top-secret storyline.

Here's how the Web retailer describes the book, by Lisa Fitzpatrick: "Academy Award-winning writer/director James Cameron, the maker of Titanic and the creator of the Terminator series, has been crafting Avatar for over four years.

"The film follows the story of an ex-marine who finds himself thrust into hostilities on a distant planet filled with exotic life forms. As an avatar, a human consciousness in an alien body, he finds himself torn between two worlds, in a desperate fight for his own survival and that of the indigenous people.

"The Art of Avatar, the companion book to this epic 3-D action adventure, explores the developmental and conceptual art used by the creative team to create the original world of Avatar.

"With over 100 exclusive full-color images including sketches, matte paintings, drawings, and film stills, The Art of Avatar reveals the process behind the creation of set designs for the imaginative vistas, unique landscapes, aerial battle scenes, bioluminescent nights and fantastical creatures. Interviews with art directors, visual-effects designers, animators, costume designers and creature makers bring insight into this creative process."

Avatar opens Dec. 18.

Fan Fever Is Rising for Debut of 'Avatar'
By MICHAEL CIEPLY

LOS ANGELES — In an old airplane hangar near the beach here, James Cameron has been working feverishly to complete a movie that may:

(a) Change filmmaking forever

(b) Alter your brain

(c) Cure cancer

For certain expectant movie fans, the answer might as well be all of the above.

Eight months before its scheduled release on Dec. 18, Mr. Cameron's "Avatar," a science-fiction thriller filmed with his own specially devised 3-D technology, is stirring up a kind of anticipation that until now had been reserved for, say, the Rapture.

That might foretell a hit on the order of Mr. Cameron's "Titanic," with $1.8 billion in worldwide ticket sales.

Or it might just be a giant headache for 20th Century Fox, which is backing "Avatar" and will have to spend much of the year managing expectations for a film whose technological wizardry is presumed by more than a few to promise an experiential leap for audiences comparable to that of "The Jazz Singer," the arrival of Technicolor or an Obama campaign rally.

To date, neither a trailer nor even a still photo from the film, which tells the story of a disabled soldier who uses technology to inhabit an alien body on a distant planet, has been made public by Mr. Cameron or Fox.

But a number of enthusiasts who have been swapping notes on the message boards at IMDB.com claim to have already seen the movie — in their dreams. "The special effects were mostly drawings and cartoons, but they looked 3-D still," wrote one "planetshane," whose particular dream involved a pirated copy of an early version.

"It was the best movie I had ever seen," the post continued.

Only a few weeks ago, Joshua Quittner, a technology writer for Time magazine, fed the frenzy when he reported feeling a strange yearning to return to the movie's mythical planet, Pandora, the morning after he was shown just 15 minutes of the film. Mr. Cameron, Mr. Quittner wrote, theorized that the movie's 3-D action had set off actual "memory creation."

Questioned by telephone recently at his home in Mill Valley, Calif., Mr. Quittner said he was still reeling from the experience.

"It was like doing some kind of drug," he said, describing a scene in which the movie's hero, played by Sam Worthington, ran around "with this kind of hot alien chick," was attacked by jaguarlike creatures and was sprinkled with sprites that floated down, like snowflakes.

"You feel like the little feathery things are landing on your arm," said Mr. Quittner, who remained eager for another dose.

Executives and producers of the film declined to be interviewed for this article. In a statement Fox said: "Jim Cameron is breaking new ground with this film. Like all movie fans, the studio is excited by the prospect of such an original piece of entertainment."

In a brief interview reported by The Associated Press in December, Mr. Cameron said he was worried that "Avatar" could not live up to the expectations that were building around it. "Whatever they think it's going to be, it's probably not," he said at the time about those who were speculating about the movie on the Internet and elsewhere.

Yet Mr. Cameron has done his share to feed the hype with his repeated assurances that a coming wave of 3-D cinema (yes, it still requires glasses) would have the power to penetrate the brain in a way that movies never have.

Some fans believe that Mr. Cameron and his colleagues have finally crossed the "uncanny valley." That is a supposed point at which a viewer's responsiveness to a simulated human takes a sudden drop into revulsion as the image comes close to reality but strikes the watcher as being zombielike, or not quite right.

Dr. Mario Mendez, a behavioral neurologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine, said it is entirely possible that Mr. Cameron's work could tap brain systems that are undisturbed by conventional 2-D movies. One, he said, is a kind of inner global-positioning system that orients a person to the surrounding world.

"Three-D demonstrably creates a space that triggers this GPS; it's really very stimulating," Dr. Mendez said. He added that he had used virtual-reality therapy in working with soldiers at the Veterans Administration hospital in Los Angeles — and found himself jarred by his experience with a "virtual Iraq" simulation.

"It was with me for days and days," Dr. Mendez said.

At ShoWest, a convention of movie exhibitors, a few weeks ago, Mr. Cameron in a short promotional video compared watching "Avatar" to "dreaming with your eyes wide open." (It was a neat complement to those who have been viewing the movie in their sleep.)

But, sooner rather than later, an increasingly restless group of the fans would like to sample the real thing. And that presents a conundrum for Fox, which will be hard pressed to release a conventional, 2-D trailer online — one of the most powerful ways to promote a movie these days — without undercutting the promise of a transcendental 3-D experience.

"I can't believe they would spend 12 years developing the technology and telling us in words how great this is, then show us in 2-D," said T. F. Powell, who runs AvatarMovieZone.com, an unofficial fan site devoted to the film. Mr. Powell recently spoke by telephone from Kansas.

Some fans are already teasing their peers about expecting too much.

"You would think this movie cures cancer," taunted a skeptical Danny Danger in his "movie preview extravaganza" on a MySpace blog in January.

Typically, studios have given a peek at some of their biggest science-fiction and fantasy movies during the giant Comic-Con convention, an annual summer gathering of the fans in San Diego. But that also poses problems for "Avatar," in that Comic-Con's convention hall setting has not been equipped to showcase films in 3-D.

"I can't imagine we will not have something, but nothing has been confirmed," said David Glanzer, the convention's director of marketing and public relations, speaking of the prospects for an "Avatar" moment at Comic-Con.

As for the movie's release in December, Mr. Glanzer said, "Maybe they should have nurses in the lobby."

It was a joking reference to a ploy once used by the producer William Castle. He posted fake nurses in the lobby of theaters that showed his own neuron-challenging horror film "Macabre," while insuring every member of the audience for $1,000 against "death by fright."

Exclusive: Soderbergh Gives Avatar High Praise
Source: Edward Douglas; ComingSoon

Earlier today, ComingSoon.net had a rare opportunity for an extended interview with filmmaker Steven Soderbergh for his upcoming film The Girlfriend Experience, a timely film about a high-priced Manhattan escort played by adult video star Sasha Grey.

We had a chance to talk to Soderbergh at length about the film as well as his next two studio projects, The Informant and Moneyball, which reunite him with Matt Damon and Brad Pitt, respectively, but the real surprise came at the end of our conversation.

We were asking why he thought recent films didn't have quite the impact or longevity as the classics, and he gave us a great response about how the volume of movies being made and seen made it hard for anything to have the cultural impact of a movie like The Godfather or be remembered. He was disappointed there weren't those sorts of benchmarks in the movies being made today, but he surprised us by adding that he thought James Cameron's Avatar would be one of those benchmarks:

"I've seen some stuff and holy sh*t. It's the craziest sh*t ever. That could negate everything I just said," he told us.

A lot of people are eagerly anticipating the film, being that it's Cameron's first narrative feature film since Titanic way back in 1997, but nothing has been seen of the movie beyond a poster and a brief report from TIME last month. To have a reputable and discerning filmmaker like Soderbergh give it such high praise certainly makes one optimistic that Cameron's return will be the stuff of cinematic legend.

POSTER??

*google*

boom.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joblo.com%2Fnewsimages1%2Favat-postbig2.jpg&hash=78bb886870c46a4c20698269e725989ec5eef1f5)

fake?

yeah that poster's been around a long time.  fake.

There's so much hype and so little info on this thing, there's no way any film could possibly live up to it.  Avatar is the Segway of movies.

Imax Clears a Path for What Could Be a Good Long Run of James Cameron's "Avatar"

How hot is James Cameron's "Avatar"? Hot enough that Imax so far has not lined up any other Hollywood movies for its ultra-big screen theaters between Fox's release of Mr. Cameron's 3-D science fiction thriller on Dec. 18 and the arrival of Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" on March 5. Things could change. But the Imax people are mulling whether the several hundred large screens by then expected to be up and running with commercial films (as opposed to the museum-type fare) will be needed for almost three months to satisfy demand for Mr. Cameron's first feature film since "Titanic."

By contrast, Paramount's "Star Trek" got only two weeks on the Imax circuit, which by the weekend will be playing "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian." And "Terminator Salvation," also opening next weekend, will have no Imax presence at all.

By the end of next year, new Imax venues should break the bottleneck that currently makes it impossible to open two films on the super-screens at once.

Does this film even exist and is it as awesome as it's trumped to be? I wonder if IMAX has even seen any footage. It'd be hilarious if Jim Cameron pulls a Private Witt and is all like, "April Fools!" then gets banned from Filmmaking.

I think the hype for this movie is actually so high that it has transcended logic and cannot not live up to it.

Avatar Running Time is Over Two and a Half Hours
Source: Slash Film

Editor's (Peter Sciretta) Note: Brendon filed this report yesterday, but I wasn't initially willing to run it based on an unconfirmed source on a Twitter account. But since that time, /Film's Russ Fischer was able to follow-up with Avatar producer John Landau, who made an appearance at the Ubisoft booth during the E3 video game convention. Fischer asked about Avatar's running time, and Landau confirmed that it is "definitely over two and a half hours."

The reason why I had my doubts is that the film is being released theatrically in 2D, Digital 3D and IMAX 3D, but the latter format does not allow for three-hour films. I contacted IMAX, and they confirmed that the longest a non-digital 3D presentation could run is 160 minutes, and that is with two separate film reels, one for each eye. I asked IMAX if they would be forced to cut down Avatar if the finished film ran 3 hours in length, and they said they'd get back to me — which of course, they never did. When IMAX first began screening theatrical upconversions, the maxium running time was shorter, and I do recall one of the Harry Potter films being shortened a few minutes of the IMAX presentation. So it is possible that the same thing might have to be done for Avatar.

You can read Brendon's original report, which claims a finished running time of 189 minutes (or three hours and nind minutes)  after the jump.


Brendon's Report begins:

According to the threadmeisters at Film Crew T-Shirts, the running time of James Cameron's Avatar is going to be... drum roll please... 189 minutes. How would they know? Well, I assume they've fostered some strong relationships with members of, quite obviously, film crews, and furthermore that one of these folks is a crew member on Avatar. Far from impossible.

Everything I know about Avatar suggests a 189 minute run time will still require a brisk pace and some tight editing to get all of the different narrative threads spun out neatly. Titanic ran over 5 minutes longer and, relatively speaking, that was a straightforward story that took far less exposition just to get the premise clear in people's minds.

Interestingly, James Cameron has had a few bouts of crew friction that flared up into Blade Runner style T-shirt wars. On Terminator 2, the crew made shirts that said ""You Can't Scare Me - I Work For Jim Cameron."

More recently, Sam Worthington raffled off an Avatar t-shirt that gave us the first definite look at artwork from within the production. It showed a silhouette of a Na'vi character and contained the film's logotype, which we've now seen in all subsequent promotions.

I don't think Cameron would be the kind of guy to buckle and let anything other than his director's cut, no matter how long it is, be the theatrical release. I can't imagine he'll be accepting a run time ceiling on his final cut contract. Sure, Aliens was released in a cut down version, and I'm still not entirely clear on whether the longer Terminator 2 was Cameron's preferred version or not, but those were both released before he was made King of the World.

Many of the recent posts on the Film Crew T-Shirts Twitter feed have been about Date Night with Steve Carell and Tina Fey, on the set of which they witnessed some car stunts, and GI Joe, about which they revealed nothing, gagged by an NDA. While they retain their anonymity they stand a very good chance of digging up some really good scoopage.

Cameron's game-changer?
'Avatar' looks to alter Hollywood videogame biz
Source: Variety

The track record of film-based videogames has been spotty. While there have been a handful of critical and commercial successes, the majority have been average at best -- and, frequently, embarrassing.

James Cameron plans to change that. Fox has scheduled a December release of his 3-D film "Avatar" and the filmmaker has pushed game publisher Ubisoft to create the vidgame industry's first stereoscopic title.

What's more, Cameron was so impressed by some of the shots developed by Ubisoft Digital Arts, a computer animation studio owned by the game publisher, that he will use some of them in the film.

Admittedly, these are small steps, but they signify a game-changing alliance with a multibillion-dollar industry, as Hollywood and gamemakers begin to work more closely.

And while few gamers -- or anyone else for that matter -- have a TV that will support the spectroscopic feature, a non-3-D version of the "Avatar" game also will be sold, and will bear Cameron's mark of approval. What's more, the 3-D game plants the seed for the Holy Grail of creating stereo 3-D at home in much the same way Cameron's commitment-obsession to 3-D film is being eyed as a significant step in even wider use of the format.

Ubisoft doesn't plan to end its association with high-powered directors after "Avatar" ships. The company announced at tech confab E3 in Los Angeles this month that it would work with Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy on a gaming adaptation of the upcoming "Tintin." The film marks a reteaming for the company with Peter Jackson, with whom Ubisoft worked on 2005's "King Kong," a launch title for the Xbox 360.

"We can create good games, but we are still very junior at creating movies, so why not join forces with the best of the best to make our visions come to life?" says Yves Guillemot, Ubisoft chairman-CEO, who co-founded the company in 1986.

Cameron and the company began work on the game version of "Avatar" 2½ years ago, an incredibly long gestation period for a film-based game. The long development window was deliberate to ensure the game would match the quality of the film, Cameron said during a surprise appearance at the E3 press conference for Ubisoft.

"Movies are on a one-year track," he said. "One year after someone pushes the button, it's in theaters. Good games can't be made that fast."

While affairs between studios and game publishers aren't always smooth, both sides say the "Avatar" relationship quickly became collaborative. As both sides contributed to each other's work, Cameron's passion for the project pushed Ubisoft to experiment with technologies that have never before been tried in the videogame space.

The partnership is part of Ubisoft's strategy to blend its game studios with filmmaking. Last July, the company bought Hybride Technologies, the visual effects house behind films such as "300" and "Sin City." Today, it uses Hybride to create new technologies for both films and games.

The plan behind the strategy, Guillemot says, is to lower expenses as it pushes new boundaries: "We need to make sure we can reuse our animations and graphics with other mediums, so we can reduce the cost of making games."

Both the film and game versions of "Avatar" are set in the 22nd century on Pandora, a large moon of a gas planet teeming with exotic new forms of life. Among the creatures who live there are the Na'vi, a humanoid race with blue skin, tiger stripes and heights of up to 10 feet. Humans cannot breathe the air on Pandora, but have created a living, genetic hybrid (known as an Avatar) into which they can insert their consciousness and explore the world.

Ubisoft was given full access to the film's CG shots to re-create the world. With Cameron's blessing, though, the game will tell a different story than the film, allowing it to be released at an earlier date.

"They brought the same passion to 'Avatar,' which is a licensed game, (that they bring to) their own games," Cameron said. "The world of the Avatar game is, in some ways, richer than what you'll see in the film. At the same time, it doesn't have any spoilers in it that will ruin the film for you."

The developers also had a few improvements they wanted to make to Pandora. Ubisoft came up with the idea of adding bioluminescence to the plant life. When he saw it, Cameron was so impressed, he added it to the film.

"Let's face it, some games based on movies have sucked," Cameron said at E3. "We had very ambitious goals for this film and we knew we wanted to choose our videogame partner very carefully."

i wonder what we'll all make of this in say....3 years



(i hope xixax is around long enough for this to be answered.)

'Avatar' footage in action at Cinema Expo
James Cameron promos clips from sci-fi movie to exhibitors
Source: Hollywood Reporter

AMSTERDAM -- "The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!" James Cameron cried Tuesday as he strode onto a stage -- with his 3-D glasses on -- to unveil the first publicly shown clips from his $300 million 3-D sci-fi actioner "Avatar."

The fittingly epic film promo literally added an extra dimension to Fox's presentation at the ongoing Cinema Expo.

"Avatar" actors Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana and Stephen Lang, pic producer Jon Landau, and Fox film chairman Jim Gianopulos also greeted the clearly wowed exhibs at the RAI convention center auditorium.

"Three years ago, I stood up here and said the 3-D renaissance is coming," Cameron said. "And from what we've seen in the business, we can now say it has arrived."

In introducing the 24-minute assemblage, Cameron said much of it came from the first third of the film but that there were also glimpses from unfinished portions of later battle scenes involving warring sides clashing over control of the fantasy world Pandora.

The filmmaker also said the action gets nonstop in the latter portions of the film, which throughout is populated by strange life-forms in a world of unprecedentedly rich fantasy elements. Worthington plays an avatar -- a remote-controlled character created by melding his crippled human form into a super-human being -- whose fate lies ultimately in doing battle with his own former race.

Fox made media covering the event agree not to report details of the "Avatar" images or to interview audience members for reactions. But from the sustained applause at the conclusion of the presentation, suffice to say Fox didn't hurt itself at the event.

A cinematic hybrid of CGI, motion-capture animation and live action, "Avatar" is Cameron's first dramatic feature since 1997's "Titanic." At that year's Cinema Expo, Cameron showed eight minutes of the effects-laden disaster drama before it rang up a still-record $1.84 billion worldwide boxoffice and copping Oscar's best pic statuette.

Cameron encouraged theater owners to add 3-D capability as quickly as possible. But acknowledging "Avatar" will have to play in a mix of conventional and extra-dimensional venues due to insufficient number of 3-D auditoriums, he added, "I just want to say that I think 'Avatar' is going to play great in 3-D, 2-D, any 'D.' "

"Avatar" is set to open around the world on Dec. 18, though it's become sport in Hollywood to speculate on whether the famously painstaking filmmaker will wrap the production in time. Cameron's high-profile promo appearance should go a long way toward soothing any anxieties.

"They wouldn't be doing this if it weren't coming out," a top distribution exec from a rival studio said.

Much of the technology used to capture actor performances was developed especially for "Avatar" and its effects crews at WETA Digital in New Zealand and Industrial Light + Magic in Northern California.

Before the "Avatar" presentation, international distribution co-presidents Tomas Jegeus and Paul Hanneman showed a reel of clips from other upcoming Fox pics. Those included first-quarter titles such as the family comedy "Tooth Fairy," starring Dwayne Johnson; Chris Columbus' family adventure "Percy Jackson & the Olympians" and Fox Searchlight's Mira Nair-helmed Amelia Earhart biopic "Amelia," starring Hilary Swank.

The studio also screened its 3-D three-quel "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs."

Also Tuesday, Sony screened the romantic comedy "The Ugly Truth," starring the notably not-ugly Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler. Sony's worldwide distribution president Rory Bruer is making a first-time visit to Cinema Expo, grabbing some quality time with regional exhibs.

Elsewhere around the RAI, the confab's large trade-show floor opened with tire-kickers drawn by a Dolby-sponsored lunch mingling among more serious customers. Dolby is showcasing its latest digital servers and other d-cinema products.

Recession-impacted vendors sent fewer reps this year, but Disney's large exhibit promoting Tim Burton's live-action take on "Alice in Wonderland" -- set for release in March -- compensated nicely. The display included costumes, props, production designs and even an entire dining room set.

Steady floor traffic fluctuated only when events drew attendees elsewhere.

"It picked up after the movie screening let out," Imax rep Sandie Green noted.

Cinema Expo always boasts a few food-and-beverage exhibitors -- Polish popcorn purveyor PCO Group has a large space -- but most of the floor is taken up by tech companies. Among them: d-cinema vendors Barco, Christie and NEC, German audio-equipment marketer Ernemann and Milan-based film-projection specialist Cinnemecanica.

Sony Electronics mounted its usual large booth, staffed by reps from Sony's London offices. The company is touting tech and financial offerings for digital cinema as well as video displays for theater lobbies.

"We want to start a dialog with people we haven't met before and also reach agreements with some other people," Sony spokeswoman Elizabeth Pierce said.

I really want this to be good because if James Cameron can mesh a great story with this new technology, he can make a film that will define Hollywood entertainment for years to come. It will put every other big filmmaker in a race to try to copy his accomplishments and they will always come up short. Then Cameron would have defined an ideal, but if it sucks, then it shows that technology usually hinders good filmmaking. When Cars was released, the director only trumped the great new technology in the movie. It's all he talked about in interviews and it was a bad sign because no other director of a Pixar film acted that way in promoting their film. It's the big hype for Avatar, but I trust in Cameron to do the movie better.

My biggest fear is that story wise it sucks but technologically it's a marvel and audiences flock in droves. See: Transformers.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi205.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb52%2FThe_Playlist%2Favatar-firstlook.jpg&hash=c77cc2cbf601874001cdf40683b9148152e51257)

I think this is the first official teaser poster/publicity of this damn thing...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi7.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy251%2Ffbv%2Favatarcomiccon2.jpg&hash=8f23b035d8969aeabc8099cea0b647369a864962)


Found at:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/avatarnews.php?id=56824

James Cameron starts 'Avatar' hype machine early
Source: Los Angeles Times

The King of the World isn't leaving anything to chance.

Six months before "Avatar" hits theaters, director James Cameron and 20th Century Fox are holding a full-court press with the nation's leading exhibitors at Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood tomorrow to tout his upcoming release.

"Avatar," a blend of live action and CGI animation, is Cameron's first dramatic feature since 1997's "Titantic" and has generated a frenzy of interest. During the five-hour meeting (he has never been one for short presentations), Cameron will show 20 minutes of scenes from the film and answer questions about the making and marketing of the movie.

Cameron and Fox hosted a similar event recently in Amsterdam at Cinema Expo and are expected to also show excerpts from the movie at the Comic-Con trade show this month in San Diego.

Fox has plenty of incentive to court exhibitors. The movie, which stars Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver, is a big gamble for the studio. With a budget of nearly $240 million, "Avatar" is one of the most expensive and anticipated films ever made.

It's also the most high profile 3-D movie to date. Although 3-D films are enjoying a resurgence in Hollywood, the small number of theaters with 3-D screens has limited the returns. The rollout has been delayed by the credit crunch. Only about 2,500 screens in the U.S. are 3-D ready, about half what many studio executives had anticipated.

Cameron himself has urged exhibitors to add more 3-D screens, although he has predicted the movie would do well in any format.

"The main purpose of the event is to expose exhibitors to what 'Avatar' the movie is about,'' said Jon Landau, who is producing the movie with Cameron. "Certainly, our goal is to have as many 3-D screens out there as possible.... We would like every exhibitor who is on the fence to stand on the side of 'yes, let's convert.' Not so much for 'Avatar' but for the whole industry."

Quote from: MacGuffin on July 16, 2009, 01:36:58 AM
James Cameron starts 'Avatar' hype machine early

are you fucking serious?

release a goddamn still. or a teaser with no footage from the movie in it. no stupid or casual moviegoers (the most profit-giving demographic) even know this thing exists. you dolt.

Quote from: picolas on July 16, 2009, 01:58:27 AM

Quote from: MacGuffin on July 16, 2009, 01:36:58 AM
James Cameron starts 'Avatar' hype machine early

are you fucking serious?

release a goddamn still. or a teaser with no footage from the movie in it. no stupid or casual moviegoers (the most profit-giving demographic) even know this thing exists. you dolt.

Yeah, they really seem to be banking on the notion that the AICN/ComicCon crowd alone is going to be enough to recoup that budget.  Beyond them, I can't imagine any other demographic that's anxiously awaiting this thing.  Like pic said, the casual filmgoers haven't even heard of it yet, and likely won't find anything particularly special about it when they do.  If James Cameron is expecting all the Titanic fans to go see it just because his name is above the title, he's even more out of touch with reality than I thought.

^^ while I agree with you and pic on this and even though the casual moviegoer doesn't know shit about this I still think this will make a killing at the b.o., but yeah, they need to release a poster a teaser or something offical already.

'Avatar' footage shown stateside
Fox played clips for U.S. exhibitors on Thursday
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Domestic exhibitors were envious of European theater owners when Fox flew James Cameron into Amsterdam last month to screen 24 minutes of 3D footage from his upcoming motion-capture fantasy "Avatar" at Cinema Expo.

So on Thursday, the studio brought Cameron and the clips collage to the Mann Chinese theater in Hollywood for a similar event for stateside exhibs. The event was closed to the press, but Fox execs said the response was enthusiastic.

About 220 exhibs attended the screening and lunch held afterwards at a restaurant at the adjacent Renaissance Hollywood hotel. The majority of those on hand flew in at their companies' expense, with reps from all the top circuits attending.

"It was absolutely electric," Fox distribution topper Bruce Snyder said. "I really think it played spectacularly with the exhibitors."

Fox intends to release "Avatar" worldwide Dec. 18 in a mix of conventional and 3D venues. Although the rollout of 3D systems has been held up because of the global credit crunch, more than 2,500 domestic screens are expected to be available for the anticipated release.

The Cinema Expo and Hollywood screenings of "Avatar" footage were aimed in part at encouraging exhibs to pull out all stops to get 3D projection in place in time to play the pic on as many of their screens as possible. As with the European screening, Cameron on Thursday offered introductory remarks, additional comments during the screening and mingled with attendees at lunch afterward.

Fox and Cameron also will promote "Avatar" this month at Comic-Con in San Diego, where an even longer assemblage of scenes -- including images never before shown in public -- will be screened for attendees.

i think i hate you, avatar.

I don't get the Avatar hate. First off, who gives a shit about an advertising campaign. There are no certain formulas to promoting a film. When Titanic came out, it got little coverage ahead of time and never had the huge huge opening. It just was number one for an insane amount of weeks thanks to word of mouth. Also, New Line started a campaign very early on announcing that Lord of the Rings would be the biggest thing ever. It was started online and reports came out about every little detail of the film's making. For a while hype existed with no footage available and no idea Peter Jackson could transition from indepedent films to blockbusters. Again, the campaign worked, but was the literary fanbase enough to make it what it is? No. Word of mouth picked up quickly and made it a huge success. Avatar will be a major success based on a lot things that have yet to happen. It seems insane to jump on anyone for anything yet.

Also, reports say Michael Bay was mad too about the under coverage Transfomers 2 got in its promotion but yet the film did near Dark Knight numbers in its first week.

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on July 17, 2009, 02:28:02 AM
I don't get the Avatar hate. First off, who gives a shit about an advertising campaign.

What advertising campaign? I can't see shit.

gt, i'm not posing a serious argument or anything. i'm just deeply annoyed by the lack of footage we have + the amount of footage james cameron has shown to the number of people who aren't me/the general filmgoing public despite the fact that this is quite possibly the most expensive movie ever made with less than six months to go before it premieres. i have next to no doubt it will be amazing/do well. i'm not talking about that at all.

AVATAR DAY/ AUGUST 21/ 2009:  As many IMAX 3D Screens as possible will be screening 15 minutes of AVATAR in 3D for Free.  Cameron announced this at Comic-Con earlier in the evening.

Isn't he supposed to be showing footage at comic-con?

Quote from: Stefen on July 23, 2009, 10:53:20 PM
Isn't he supposed to be showing footage at comic-con?

He did. Here is a review of the footage shown.

Comic-Con: Avatar
By Garth Franklin Thursday
July 23rd 2009 06:40PM
Been dying to see James Cameron's "Avatar"? Well now you'll be able to in a month.

James Cameron showed up in San Diego an hour ago to show off 24 minutes of footage from the film at the most anticipated presentation at the show amongst non-Twilight fans.

The collection of around five or so scenes from different sections of the film meant we only got a disjointed look at the story. What it mainly was doing was showing off the visuals which truly are breathtaking, groundbreaking but not earth-shattering.

Specifically the texture rendering and lighting is superb. The movements and skin texture of the all CG blue Na'vi aliens are detailed enough that it often looks like actors in makeup. Only the tiny waists and yellow cat-like eyes took away from the photo-realistic illusion but give the blue pastel zebra/horse/cat hybrid creations a very alien look.

The environment and non-Na'vi creatures were more notably CG, especially one scene with attacking alien beasties that seemed more George Lucas than James Cameron in tone. Plants and jungle recreations though were simply beautiful, especially a night scene where the characters traverse a bioluminescent forest utterly rich in biodiversity. The final scene involving harnessing and flying a winged creature was also pretty spectacular.

Some human scenes at the beginning were shown with Sam Worthington (looking hunky as hell) as the wheelchair-bound combat veteran who gets put into a tube with his mind inhabiting the blue creature which can be seen floating in a tub. Sigourney Weaver is also there as a scientist who inhabits one of the other creatures.

The 3D itself is utilized EXACTLY what the technology should be - never drawing attention to itself, immersing you in the world rather than distracting you with gimmicks. Can't really recall one moment where someone throws or points something outward to deliberately show off that you're watching 3D in action.

Is this the revolution of cinema that years of hype have been saying? No, simply because hype has already risen to ridiculous proportions. What it does look like is what the "Star Wars" prequels should've been - a rich sci-fi action/drama that truly transports you to another world.

Visually it looks like one of the most ambitious projects ever made, and certainly in terms of CG photo realism no other film comes close thus far. The technology is not entirely there yet, but more often than not throughout the runtime the "Avatar" footage managed to make the illusion 100% real for me (and I'm a VERY tough judge on CG visual effects).

Cameron saved the best news for last though. Rather than a 2D Quicktime trailer launch, the first glimpse that audiences will get of "Avatar" will take place on August 21st. On that 'Avatar Day', fifteen minutes of footage from the film will be screened for free in IMAX 3D theaters around the world. At present Fox is apparently trying to secure as many theaters as possible for the event so keep an eye out the week before for where the footage will be shown.

hate this poster: http://www.joblo.com/new-avatar-poster

makes me mad how ugly/lazy this is.

Looks like the new Dreamworks animated feature.

Ehh, standard teaser poster.

i'm really hoping its a fake.

It was the same one that was at Comiccon.

Quote from: modage on August 03, 2009, 01:57:29 PM
http://www.joblo.com/new-avatar-poster

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdietrichthrall.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Ftotal_recall.jpg&hash=d81b33bb5b7dee8396d9fea67b668c4f1522f411)

haha

'Avatar' trailer tickets to be given online
16-minute sneak peek to play in Imax theaters Aug. 21
Source: Hollywood Reporter
   
Free tickets will be distributed online starting Monday for special Imax presentations of a 16-minute trailer for Fox's upcoming 3D sci-fi actioner "Avatar."

The extended trailer, featuring an on-camera intro by director James Cameron, hits 101 Imax venues in the U.S. and Canada on Aug. 21 in a promo push announced at the recent Comic-Con International confab in San Diego. On the same date, theaters worldwide will begin showing more conventional 2D and 3D "Avatar" trailers.

Fans will be provided theater information and other "Avatar" tidbits via AvatarMovie.com. Visitors to the site also will see ticketing instructions and links to individual movie theaters.

"It will be two tickets to a customer to keep people from hoarding," Fox distribution boss Bruce Snyder said Wednesday. "We expect a tremendous amount of interest from the fans who are aware of 'Avatar.' "

The extended "Avatar" trailer will play just before and after separately ticketed performances for Warner Bros.' "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." At most of the specialty venues, the trailer will be shown between 6-7 p.m., running twice within the hour span.

"I think it's going to be a bit of a stampede," Imax Filmed Entertainment chief Greg Foster said. "But I can't wait for everyone to see the footage."

The extended trailer will contain much of the "Avatar" footage shown at screenings this summer at exhibitor events in Hollywood and Amsterdam, and also at Comic-Con. But at least one unspecified new scene will be included.

Part of the footage shows Sam Worthington's Avatar character adapting to a strange new environment in the fantastical world of Pandora, and a battle scene figures in a closing montage. There also is an extended clip involving a forest attack by wolf-like creatures.

The other "Avatar" trailer will continue to play in coming weeks before feature presentations of Fox Searchlight's comedy "Post Grad," the Weinstein Co.'s Brad Pitt starrer "Inglourious Basterds" and other late summer and fall releases.

"Avatar," Cameron's first dramatic feature since 1997's "Titanic," unspools worldwide Dec. 18.

New Photo from 'Avatar' Finally Shows Us Something!

Finally! A new photo from James Cameron's Avatar has been released online via Fox International and it's a pretty cool one featuring the film's star Sam Worthington sitting in front of his Avatar. Worthington plays a paraplegic war veteran who's asked to travel to the distant planet of Pandora on a mining operation. But because the planet is too harsh for humans, they've developed a cloning program that mixes human DNA with that of the planet's resident creatures, the Na'vi -- thus allowing our paraplegic to walk again inside the body of his Avatar, which also houses his consciousness. It's all rather freaky, but very cool nonetheless.

Avatar hits theaters on December 18, though on August 21 you can check out a 16-minute trailer at selected IMAX theaters in the US and Canada. If you miss the IMAX trailer, though, you'll be able to catch the film's regular trailer, which is also set to debut the same day.


streeeetchy image link (http://www.blogcdn.com/www.scifisquad.com/media/2009/08/avatartank.jpg)

James Cameron on 'Avatar': Like 'Matrix,' 'This movie is a doorway'
Source: Geoff Boucher; Los Angeles Times
EXCLUSIVE: PART 1 of the HERO COMPLEX interview

"Go ahead, fire away, I'm your guy." That's the first thing James Cameron said to me, and I had to smile – I certainly had plenty to ask him about. I had just sat down and watched about 35 minutes of footage from "Avatar" and, to put it bluntly, I was dazzled. I saw more footage than fans at Comic-Con International (I saw, for instance, a tense scene toward the end of the film as Sam Worthington's character, Jake Sully, is made a prisoner on the alien world of Pandora) and even found out how the film ends (don't worry, no spoilers here). But let's get to it -- this is Part 1 of the Hero Complex interview with Oscar-winner Cameron, the 54-year-old Canadian filmmaker whose 20th Century Fox sci-fi epic "Avatar" reaches theaters on Dec. 18.

GB: Jim, congratulations on the film, it's very, very compelling. I'm excited to see it in its entirety and even more excited to talk to you about it.

JC: Well, thanks; I'm really glad you liked it. And that's what we were hoping for. We've been working like crazy on this for a long time. And what we want is for people to like it, so that's nice to hear.

GB: I have to say it was refreshing to see a big, special effects film that was not based on a bestselling novel, a comic book, toy, old television show. That's rare these days, and it's a treat to go in, sit down and have no idea where the plot and the characters were going to go.

JC: It's simultaneously one of the great strengths and one of the potential weaknesses. We have no brand value. We have to create that brand value. "Avatar" means something to that group of fans that know this film is coming, but to the other 99% of the public it's a nonsense word and we have to hope we can educate them. Well, I shouldn't say a nonsense word – it doesn't mean anything specific in terms of a brand association. And in fact there may be even a slight negative one because more people know about the Saturday morning cartoon, the anime, than about this particular film. We've got to create that [brand] from scratch. On the other hand, ultimately, it is probably the film's greatest strength in the long run. We've had these big, money-making franchise films for a long time, "Star Trek" and "Star Wars," you know, "Harry Potter," and there's a certain sort of comfort factor in that; you know what you're going to get. But there's no kind of shock of the new that's possible with that. It's been a while since something that took us on a journey, something that grabbed us by the lapels and dragged us out the door and took us on a journey of surprise.

GB: "The Matrix" immediately springs to mind...

JC: Yes, yes, that's a very, very good example. That's something where we had no real way of knowing what that film was going to be about and it really just took us on a great ride.

GB: And like "The Matrix," this movie presents this immersive experience. The alien world and the technology you're using to tell the story, it's a big movie.

JC: The story is told very much from character. You go on Jake's journey with him. It actually starts quite small. It starts close to him, in his apartment with him, and it just expands and expands in scope as it goes along.

GB: I smiled at the "You're not in Kansas anymore" line when the main character reaches the alien world. There really is this "Wizard of Oz" sense of transportation when the story reaches the planet of Pandora.

JC: Yeah. It's my favorite movie; I had to get it in there somewhere. The production designer was Rick Carter, who actually played that out. He thought how it was, in some ways, like Dorothy's journey. I didn't quite get as much of that [when I first wrote it]. You do things sometimes as a writer subconsciously, things you're not even aware of. I'm always comfortable doing things instinctively because I see it as taping into this vein of archetype that works for a broader audience base. I don't question what I'm doing if it feels right. There might be some other references there I might not be aware of.

GB: You wrote the first script for this film almost 15 years ago. While you were waiting for technology to reach the point where it could be made, I'm curious how much of that very earliest story remained intact.

JC: I had to rework to make it possible. My treatment was so expansive and novelistic that it needed to be necked down just to make it something that could be done on the screen. This film is done on an epic scale, but it's done within the parameters of a Hollywood movie. What I found is that instead a script I had written the outline of a novel, and it was just too much story, too much back story, too many secondary characters ... but look, sometimes lightning just strikes; you have write everything down, get it done. Better to weed it out later and not miss an idea. It was essentially the longest script, in terms of the amount of time it took me to get a workable draft. The first time I tried, it ended up being more than 200 pages, so I had to go back and throw out big chunks, a lot of ideas went out. But I have to say the essence of all the big ideas stayed and I felt pretty good about that.

GB: The heritage of the project and the mystery of it, since it's not an adaptation, have created this fairly intense interest among the fanboy sector. That was obvious with the interest leading up to Comic-Con International. Do you feel you have to win fans over now to create the sort of success you want for this movie? 

JC: I think there are no real negatives because we aren't going to get prejudged like "Watchmen" or even a Batman or Spider-Man movie because you don't have all that history and that huge, brand-based mythology that you have to live up to. We aren't going to piss anybody off because they don't know what this thing is. Nobody read the novel, nobody read the graphic novel, we're not going to be playing against expectation. They aren't going to be viewing us as a disappointment or letdown before the movie even starts. This is a doorway and they don't know what's on the other side. We're going to open it for them.

There are a lot of fans of this kind of science fiction and fantasy film, and I think it's pretty fertile soil for us. I don't want to sound like, you know, 'Pride goeth before the fall," or too much hubris, but I think we get those fans to support this. I think our greater challenge is the wider public, which isn't as predisposed to embrace the movie like those fantasy and sci-fi fans. We need to talk to that audience and make them believe that this is a must-see even if they aren't sci-fi fans. And I'm not putting down Comic-Con fans. When I go down there I'm among my peeps. It's a great place to unveil "Avatar."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

James Cameron: Yes, 'Avatar' is 'Dances with Wolves' in space. . .sorta
Source: Geoff Boucher; Los Angeles Times
EXCLUSIVE: PART 2 of the HERO COMPLEX INTERVIEW

This is the second part of my interview with Oscar-winning director James Cameron, who is (finally) bringing the world his years-in-the-making sci-fi epic "Avatar." Today he explains why the film might be rightly considered "Dances with Wolves" in space and he shares his opinion of recent special-effects blockbusters -- he thought "Star Trek" absolutely rocked but "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," well, uh, not so much. He also teaches me a new word.

GB: With this movie, it feels like a classic going-native film, if that doesn't sound too flippant. In the half-hour of footage I saw I was reminded at certain points of "Farewell to the King," "A Man Called Horse" and "At Play in the Fields of the Lord."

JC: Yeah, yeah, "At Play in the Fields of the Lord" was among the videos that I used as a reference. Yeah, absolutely. Tom Berenger did some real interesting stuff in that film.

GB: There's also maybe some heritage linking it to "Dances With Wolves," considering your story here of a battered military man who finds something pure in an endangered tribal culture.

JC: Yes, exactly, it is very much like that. You see the same theme in "At Play in the Fields of the Lord" and also "The Emerald Forest," which maybe thematically isn't that connected but it did have that clash of civilizations or of cultures. That was another reference point for me. There was some beautiful stuff in that film. I just gathered all this stuff in and then you look at it through the lens of science fiction and it comes out looking very different but is still recognizable in a universal story way. It's almost comfortable for the audience – "I know what kind of tale this is." They're not just sitting there scratching their heads, they're enjoying it and being taken along. And we still have turns and surprises in it, too, things you don't see coming. But the idea that you feel like you are in a classic story, a story that could have been shaped by Rudyard Kipling or Edgar Rice Burroughs.

GB: Or Joseph Conrad...?

JC: Yes, exactly. And I think returning to classic tales is a powerful thing. Look, right now is a special time because we can basically do anything we imagine. I mean you have to work hard at it, and you've got to have the technique and you have to be willing to throw money at the problem. Sometimes you have to be a little bold and go out on a limb. But if you can imagine it, you can do it. That's why we're seeing this renaissance of  visual imagination. It's just a growth. Films look better now than they've ever looked. Sometimes they get a little lost in it though. I'll go to a "Transformers" film for the fun of seeing the spectacle but, personally, my soul craves a little more story, a little more meat on the bone and characters and that sort of thing. Look, I think it's about finding a balance between story and all of this gimmickry. I think I veer toward classicism, being solidly rooted in the classic stuff. I mean really old-school science fiction. This is a movie I would have loved to have seen when I was a 14-year-old kid in 1968.

GB: Well, certainly, that's why it's reassuring for anyone to see movies like "Star Trek" and "Up," which might be my two favorite films this year, because both are examples of technology and craft achieving the fantastic but in service of great storytelling.

JC: Right, "Star Trek" -- look at that. That is a great example of a complete reinvention. Really, it's beautifully done, really. Bravo. And I loved the first season of "Star Trek" back in 1965 or 1966 or whenever it was, it grabbed me as a kid, but I drifted away from it over time. And this was such a great way to see it come back as re-imagined. What fun.

GB: In the footage I saw it seemed to me that you were able to present nuanced emotion in the faces of the alien tribe and the human avatars who walk among them. That's vital, isn't it? I mean we've seen movies where computer-created or computer-augmented  visages seemed wooden or dead-faced.

JC: That was the biggest challenge of the film. No matter how much art and technology we threw at this thing, if it wasn't in the eyes of the characters – if you didn't see a soul there – it would just be a big clanking machine. And I think that's what people were responding to with ... well I don't want to throw a particular movie under the bus here, but let's just say we've seen examples of motion-capture not quite getting it. It's called the uncanny valley. We've seen movies never quite get out of the uncanny valley. That's a reference to a negative effect that is created when something approaches human [in appearance] but isn't quite there, it creates this creepiness. Our goal right from the get-go is that we had to get over the uncanny valley. These characters have to be real, they have to be alive. And what the actors do has to come through 100%. We didn't want to get in and come back and muck around with a lot of key-framing where we would be animating over what the actors did. Our goal was a pure translation of the actors' performance, at least as much as the physiology of that character allowed. The actors can't act the tail, the actors can't ears, so there is a layer of animation on top of what they are doing. But if I showed you the reference video track of what [lead actors] Zoe [Saldana] and Sam [Worthington] did, I think you'd be astonished at how closely it maps to the final performance that you see. I think it's one-to-one. You know, and, we expected that maybe we'd get to 90%, maybe 95%, but I don't think we dreamed that we'd get to 100%. But we did. There's absolutely no diminishment.

GB: That's pretty confident talk! I talked to your producing partner Jon Landau and he said that you guys were referring to the work here as emotion-capture, as opposed to motion-capture. It's a catchy phrase if you guys can live up to it.

JC: We spent the first year and a half of the film – before we were truly green-lit, but we were well-funded— developing the facial performance capture system and the pipeline that would see it through to completion. We even did an end-to-end test where we captured scenes and took them out to the final photo-real record just so we understood the process. And it's a tribute to how much Weta Digital down in New Zealand has been able to evolve the state of the art beyond their own expectations at the beginning of the film. In fact we're seeing a difference now between some of the first stuff they turned in a year ago and what we're getting now. What we're getting now is actually better.

GB: Your reputation is as a perfectionist, does that mean you need to re-do some early stuff?

JC: No I don't think you'll ever feel the diminishment as you go through the movie. But we'll see a scene that was an earlier scene in process and they look great, but a newer stuff is stunning. And that stuff we haven't even showed anyone yet. We're just getting it in now. I'm about to head over to a Weta review right now, I'll probably spend the next four hours in there reviewing stuff, and I look forward to it every day. When we unpack these shots, sometimes our jaws just drop at the verisimilitude to the actors. And that's what thrills me most. I'm kind of over all the design stuff. That was the first two years. I'm kind of used to that stuff now, the floating mountains and thousand-foot trees. But when I see Sam Worthington captured exactly at a critical-performance moment -- that still gets me.

got my reservation for Friday at 6pm

the preview is showing in montreal, calgary, and toronto. but not in vancouver.

it makes perfect sense really. vancouver is the 3rd most filmed in place in the world. it has lots of people who pay money to see movies in it. it has several imax screens. james cameron must find it repulsive.

'Avatar' site crashes as fans seek tickets
16-minute sneak preview will be in theaters Friday
Source: Hollywood Reporter

The official "Avatar" Web site crashed for several hours on Monday as moviegoers rushed to secure free seats to see the 16 minutes of 3D preview footage that will be shown at 104 Imax theaters around the country on Friday evening.

Ticket ordering was scheduled to begin online at noon PDT, but at about 11:55 a.m., the site started experiencing difficulties. About 17,000 of the 68,000 available tickets were distributed before the heavy traffic forced the site down for several hours.

"Due to the overwhelming response for tickets to the 'Avatar' event on 8/21, our servers have crashed. We will update you as soon as possible," ticket seekers were advised by "Avatar's" Twitter site.

By late afternoon, avatarmovie.com was again up and running, taking five orders every second. Locations in New York and Los Angeles sold out almost immediately, and most tickets were expected to be snapped up by the end of the day.

Given that "Avatar," James Cameron's first narrative feature since 1997's "Titanic," promises a display of cutting-edge technology, the site snafu was something of an embarrassment.

At the same time, it had to be good news for Fox, which is facing the challenge of creating awareness for a movie that isn't based on a pre-existing brand, book or film. The sci-fi adventure -- with a budget the studio has put at $237 million -- opens in the U.S. on Dec. 18 and worldwide that same week.

While Fox and Cameron have been slowly unveiling footage from the film -- first at the CineExpo convention in Amsterdam in June and then at last month's Comic-Con -- Friday will be the first chance for many moviegoers to see for themselves scenes in which Australian actor Sam Worthington, playing a paralyzed Marine who travels to the planet of Pandora, finds new life as an avatar -- a blue-skinned, 10-foot tall, half-human, half-alien hybrid.

"I think to say that there is already a lot of interest in the movie is a pretty good understatement. Obviously, it blew out all the servers," said Greg Foster, Imax's chairman and president of filmed entertainment. "It's a pretty big statement about the curiosity and interest in the whole thing."

The participating Imax theaters, in between regularly scheduled screenings of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," will offer two screenings Friday of the "Avatar" footage, which will include a 30-second introduction by Cameron in which he sets up the clips. Foster said there are no plans to offer more screenings.

Fox is counting on the cachet of Cameron and its advertising and promotion to drive licensing and merchandising beginning more than two months before the movie's release.

Mattel begins shipping 28 toys to stories in early October and expects them to be on store shelves at Wal-Mart, Target and other retailers by early November.

"We're going to be pulling all the levers to make sure these are marketed properly," Mattel spokesman Chris Volk said.

"We were aware the toys would be out six weeks before the movie opens, but luckily we have Jim Cameron's name, which speaks for itself and has its own following," Fox vp licensing Virginia King added.

Lora Cohn, another vp licensing at the studio, said: "The code name for this project was 8-80, which we even use on some T-shirts, which meant that it will appeal to everyone from eight to 80."

The toys will be priced from $8.99 for a simple action figure to $26.99 for the most deluxe version.

Mattel is also counting on the action figures, creatures and vehicles from the movie to attract collectors and fans. Each figure will come with a 3D Web tag called an I-tag. When the buyer gets the toy home, they put the tag in front of a Web camera and it will reveal special content about that item such as bio background or animated models.

There will also be video games released beginning in late November for three different systems and offering two content variations, said Tim Cummings, senior PR manager for Ubisoft, the French company that developed the games in Montreal. The games for Xbox 360 and PlayStation allow the user to take the role of the hero, while a game for the Nintendo Wii allows the user to take the side of the hero or the villains in the movie. All of the games will be 3D capable but also play in a 2D version.

Ubisoft will premiere its first commercial trailer for the video games on Friday alongside the Imax showings. That day, the same trailer will be shown at the huge Gamescon trade show in Cologne, Germany.

The Xbox and PS3 versions will retail for $59.99; the Wii game will retail for $49.99.

In addition to toys and games, Fox has licenses for clothing lines for men (through Jem) and women (through Awake) that will be available at mass retailers and boutiques on Nov. 24.

Both Cohn and King said they are not concerned that toys, games and clothes will be out weeks before the movie. They said Mattel has been careful in how many units are being shipped, and they expect the toys could be sold out based on reaction to the theatrical trailers, TV ads, promotion and interest by collectors even before the movie opens.

There are also publishing licensees, Abrams and Harper Collins,  who will put out books and other print products for adults and children.

Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYBRFJ9RArc)

amazing.

It was alright, I guess. I don't know. My hopes were just too high. It just didn't look very believable.

Quote from: Stefen on August 18, 2009, 02:34:15 PMIt just didn't look very believable.

You didn't have the 3-D glasses on.

After all the bullshit about this film for years, I'm now officially excited to see it.

REAL Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/)


EDIT: damn thing ain't loading.  :evil:

http://specials.divertissements.fr.msn.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx (http://specials.divertissements.fr.msn.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx)

French trailer works.

Quote from: cinemanarkissed on August 20, 2009, 09:31:03 AM
http://specials.divertissements.fr.msn.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx (http://specials.divertissements.fr.msn.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx)
French trailer works.

Very disappointed. (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=10485.msg269156#msg269156)  Looks great except the CG which despite Cameron's claims it's evident the technology is clearly still not there!  Otherwise it's just your average mix of Aliens/LOTR/StarWarsPrequels/Ferngully/StarshipTroopers.

Seriously? The creatures, navi, dragons, etc look cartoony as fuck! Everything else looks awesome and organic but the creatures look stupid. What's with the cartoony eyes? It would have looked a lot more real if they went with a darker shade of blue instead of that light blue that looks fake and they should have had real human eyes.

Still looks pretty badass but nothing that's revolutionary like we've all been lead to believe.

This was pretty cool though.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi27.tinypic.com%2Fal516b.gif&hash=865fa7ec68eb7929fbcda17d1f60878f43ebf2ba)

 :yabbse-undecided:

holy shit! if i didn't know anything about this i wouldn't be interested at all! and most people don't know anything about this! what the fuck, everyone involved? you've created obscene visual expectations for something that CLEARLY looks like a cartoon.

now that fake teaser seems more like a warning than a prank.

Quote from: modage on August 20, 2009, 09:32:04 AMOtherwise it's just your average mix of Aliens/LOTR/StarWarsPrequels/Ferngully/StarshipTroopers.

Thought the same thing. It looks like all the JarJar scenes.

while some stuff does look cartoony I'll judge it until I see it in a proper screen, maybe in the imax theaters it will look awesome. let's hope.


the few landscapes that were shown are amazing thou.

If this sumbitch bombs (and I'm hoping it doesn't), cameron and co. have no one to blame but themselves. I don't think one could ever make a film that would live up to the amount of hype they manufactured for this.

i appreciate the tone of the trailer, pretty intense and at least the "in a world" shit is written and not spoken.  while ya i agree looks like typical kinda stuff, my interest is still there.

i really don't think it's going to make back its money. the campaign has actually crossed the line from very mysterious to arrogant. we still know almost nothing. so many people have gone to great lengths to see a PREVIEW of this. and still the mainstream doesn't know it exists. many young people don't know who james cameron is. i don't think most people will give this a second thought.

I have only been kind of interested in this from the beginning (not the biggest James Cameron fan), but when I heard the whole "it's supposed to revolutionize filmmaking" or something like that, I was genuinely excited. I can't believe everybody got their dick wet over this. This looks so mediocre, the backlash is going to ruin this film. The trailer deflates every ounce of the hype. The hype/underwhelmed ratio is almost uncalculatable. Too early to tell, sure, but goddamn. Shitty trailer.

Best three-hour video game cutscene ever.

in summation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-hRhGxqxpQ

i haven't watched the trailer.

i was never too excited about the super-advanced technology aspect of Avatar's hype. i felt like that was a way of getting people interested in a movie that is too high-concept to market any other way. it's possible we actually are witnessing a technological revolution right there in front of our eyes as we process the disappointment we are feeling. notice how we are so underwhelmed that the technological achievements demonstrated in the trailer are comparable to other equally astonishing technological feats in movies.. star wars, Lord of the Rings, ALIENS. we're disappointed by that! i'm starting to realize that i feel very detached from all this crystal clear high definition reality fanaticism. 2001 was made with "inferior" technology to all of those films and it's also a million times better on every level. we've never seen an alien (as far as we know), we've never been on another planet inhabited by life (as far as we know) so we don't know what this shit should look like. but it makes sense that computers have so many times failed to produce an organic "realistic"-looking alien creature.

so that's why i'll be okay with this movie's animation being as "average" as Star Wars or Aliens. james cameron is a fuckin weirdo who could save himself a lot of money if he realized the most awe-inspiring, lush, beautiful landscapes you'll ever see do not reside on a computer chip.

Maybe it's just the medium in which we're experiencing it for the first time. A grainy webpage on a computer monitor probably isn't the best way to experience it for the first time.

It's like hearing Kid A for the first time on a staticky AM radio station.

I always find it funny that with how advanced technology is, it still can't figure out a way to deliver it to us in a more pristine manner.

I go back to the first time I saw the Magnolia trailer attached to Green Mile. I was blown away. The colors, the music, the atmosphere. It was a life changing event. I think about what would happen if I saw that same trailer for the first time on Youtube. I'd probably be an auto mechanic right now.

hedwig, if you're okay with it why don't you watch it?

The trailer is up in Apple.

Meh....

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/hd/

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duffzone.org%2Freferences%2Ftwinpeaks%2Ftw-simp08.jpg&hash=01ef38edad26164ae16c25894b3699385e1c783b)
TV: That's damn fine coffee you got here in Twin Peaks! And damn good cherry pie!

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duffzone.org%2Freferences%2Ftwinpeaks%2Ftw-simp09.jpg&hash=978fe4cce62d1b636b660c2cafb4bad5b530f641)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duffzone.org%2Freferences%2Ftwinpeaks%2Ftw-simp10.jpg&hash=216a22f01877fbbda59e92f44cade28e407fb90f)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duffzone.org%2Freferences%2Ftwinpeaks%2Ftw-simp11.jpg&hash=2fd81dbeb458772cd493d2a5ad68354ab71ba6c7)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duffzone.org%2Freferences%2Ftwinpeaks%2Ftw-simp12.jpg&hash=c6a0ea8e1daf137535ce52b0623918d7f285d714)
Homer: Brilliant! [laughs] I have absolutely no idea what's going on.

I was hoping the Navi would look better in HD quicktime than they did on yahoo this morning but they don't.  :yabbse-sad:

Very disappointing and I wanted to believe in this project because I thought James Cameron was the guy who could marry technology and story. We still have no idea about the story aspect of this movie, but it's sealed about the technology. Theater viewing may be a little bit better, but it won't help much. The shame is that digital effects are still only a few notches above the Final Fantasy movie from a few years ago.

In our lifetime, the situation may always be that digital will always look like digital. Too many other companies in other mediums explore digital effects so no film or filmmaker is going to leap frog huge corporate companies. The path to realistic and breathtaking digital effects may be a very slow walk and develop over time so by the time it's perfected, audiences will only know slight differences. They will be too ingrained to every development already.

Avatar creatures
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2F14448.jpg&hash=345fee4cb9dd8112283a2f29d9af3577cf62f3c3)

=

Cat-people from "Sleepwalkers"
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fsleepwalkers3.jpg&hash=25b7d63d2e82368c304d9ceec15ab12c6c7ba06c)

+blue
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fsleepwalkersblue.jpg&hash=2468c88429222f5a36a46cc3857b3b25b1f360ea)

+BIG EYES

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fsleepwalkersblue2-1.jpg&hash=de98f976768f813d6dc9223fe8763d7fbf54de64)

lol that is amazing did you do that or got it somewhere?

Somebody elsewhere mentioned the resemblance, so I whipped out the photoshop to illustrate the point.

 :bravo:

Holy shit, that's incredible. You need to whip up a YouTube video.

I think all this talk about digital being integrated with story or creating realistic-looking aliens or not looking cartoony is all kind of bullshit, because I just saw District 9 where all of those things were not a problem.

am i the only one that liked it?

Quote from: ddiggler on August 21, 2009, 11:11:17 AM
am i the only one that liked it?

I liked it. I just think the Na'vi look cartoony as fuck.

isn't mindblowing in the least; the Colours and Textures are nice looking but the sense of actual physical weight and movement that almost all CGI misses is still absent; they need to figure out how to "dirty up" CGI to make it look real

`Avatar' previews held worldwide for eager fans
Source: AP

LOS ANGELES - If James Cameron wanted to light up the Internet by releasing footage from his upcoming film "Avatar," he got his wish — just don't expect him to be glued to a computer screen, soaking up the online buzz.

The "Titanic" director has people for that.

"I've had it kind of broken down for me, what people are talking about," Cameron said Friday. "I know we have right now, historically, broken the record for the total number of downloads for the trailer."

The two-minute online trailer for the 3D sci-fi epic, which debuted Thursday — and the unprecedented 16-minute previews shown in theaters worldwide Friday — inspired steady traffic on Twitter and Facebook. But Cameron, a champion of 3D technology and a pioneer of computer-generated effects in modern moviemaking, says he lacks certain social networking skills to take part.

"I don't even know how to Twitter," the 55-year-old filmmaker said in an interview Friday. "I'm so unhip that it's tragic."

Unhip maybe, but forward-thinking enough to try the "crazy stunt" that he says he and his team came up with: Invite people to the movie theater to watch 16 minutes of scenes for free. The footage was being shown Friday on 102 screens domestically and 342 screens internationally — 58 countries in all — to fans who scored free tickets online.

"And it's not even a continuous 16 minutes," Cameron said. "There are a number of scenes, about three or four minutes apiece. And the idea was to let people come in and really sample the quality of the goods."

Cameron, whose last film was world box-office record-holder "Titanic" in 1997, already knows how to make a splash on screen. Reactions to the mammoth marketing blitz were rolling in on the Web, where "Avatar" was among the top topics on Twitter on Thursday.

Many were struck by its visual splendor, including Hong Kong moviegoer Jason Poon, who tweeted that it was "probably the best CG and 3-D I've ever seen." James Hilder in London said it was "mega impressive."

One fan disappointed with the online trailer said seeing the extended preview in 3D changed his mind about the movie.

"It is essential that you watch it in IMAX 3D, or 3D," Manoj Patel wrote on the film's Facebook page. "I just got back from watching the 15-minute footage, and I've got to say, my mouth was wide open all the way through."

Not all the early reactions were laudatory.

In Tel Aviv, Shay Ringel tweeted after a screening: "What was THAT?! ... Everyone walked out (scratching) their heads saying, `Why are we here?'"

Analyzing the trailer, several movie blogs — including Movieline.com and Spout blog — noted similarities to the 2008 animated flop "Delgo" and other science fiction movies.

The studio makes no bones about it: Showing the footage, much of which was seen at Comic-Con last month in San Diego, was an effort by Cameron and 20th Century Fox to build buzz for the film, said Jeffrey Godsick, executive vice president of marketing for Fox.

"Honestly, it's a pretty simple goal: We'd like as many people as possible to learn about the world of 'Avatar,'" he said, adding that fan interaction online adds to the fun. "What's exciting about this, by having all these events on one day — especially with the Internet — is it gives you a worldwide communal experience, and 'Avatar' is an experience."

Studios usually closely guard footage of movies before their release, only occasionally offering glimpses to the public at special events.

"Avatar" tells the story of humans who travel to a distant planet and have their brains linked to cloned versions of a native species in order to explore the otherwise unsafe environment. It will be released in its entirety Dec. 18.

the first couple minutes of live action i thought i could get into it then came the blue people and it became a dreamworks cartoon. i think cameron become too wrapped up in the technology instead of the story and too disconnected from what makes something good.  i think it might be time to bury him, zemeckis and spielberg.  i have transferred all my anticipation for this to Inception.

Quote from: modage on August 22, 2009, 09:29:49 AM
the first couple minutes of live action i thought i could get into it then came the blue people and it became a dreamworks cartoon. i think cameron become too wrapped up in the technology instead of the story and too disconnected from what makes something good.  i think it might be time to bury him, zemeckis and spielberg.  i have transferred all my anticipation for this to Inception.

Are you referring to the above 15-minute preview? A guy I know (who's completely untrustworthy, in terms of taste) went to the preview and said this on Facebook:

"Tonight I saw a 15 minute sneak peak of the new movie AVATAR it comes out in Dec. and we saw a few different scenes in IMAX 3D. WOW that shit looked real as fuck, and it looks amazing. I can't wait to see this entire film."

I guess you have to know him to know how annoying "shit looked real as fuck" sounds in person.

Quote from: Gamblour. on August 21, 2009, 09:24:17 AM
I think all this talk about digital being integrated with story or creating realistic-looking aliens or not looking cartoony is all kind of bullshit, because I just saw District 9 where all of those things were not a problem.

Not the same thing. I can only judge District 9 based on the trailers, but it seems to mix the digital aliens with actual settings. It also looks like it mixes a lot of models, animatronics with the digital look in the aliens. Avatar is trying to create a wholly digital world with wholly digital aliens where such a large percentage of the film is based on digital effects that the human actors are the things that stand out the way digital creations normally do in film.

There were actually no animatroncs in District 9. The aliens are entirely digital creations.

Quote from: polkablues on August 22, 2009, 12:07:24 PM
There were actually no animatroncs in District 9. The aliens are entirely digital creations.

Then I'll rest on my first point.

I saw the 15 min and it did not look real as fuck.  It looked cartoony as fuck.

Quote from: modage on August 22, 2009, 01:30:28 PM
I saw the 15 min and it did not look real as fuck.  It looked cartoony as fuck.

So is this film intended be viewed, ideally/optimally, in Imax 3D? That seems a bit silly.

further delgovatar comparison

http://img.denihilation.com/delgovatar.html

i wrote a blog post about my disappointment: http://modage.tumblr.com/post/169928292/james-cameron-what-happened-to-us

(warning: it's long)

Quote from: modage on August 23, 2009, 04:51:20 PM
i wrote a blog post about my disappointment: http://modage.tumblr.com/post/169928292/james-cameron-what-happened-to-us

(warning: it's long)

daaamn wait til the movie comes out :)

Hate the Avatar trailer? Star says that was the plan
Source: SciFiWire

The teaser trailer for James Cameron's Avatar underwhelmed the Web at the same time that the preview of about 16 minutes of footage wowed audiences who were lucky enough to screen it in IMAX 3-D on "Avatar Day" last Friday, and star Sam Worthington argues that was the plan all along.

"It's got a hell of a lot of hype," Worthington told a group of reporters in London last Friday. "I read all what was said yesterday about the ... trailer. I can see their point. But, as I said, it wasn't meant to be built for an Apple Mac. It's built for IMAX. It's built for 3-D. That's what [Cameron]'s designed it for. He's designed it to bring people back to the cinema."

Worthington added: "It's interesting that he's released that trailer, that Jim's gone and done that, and then the next day goes and shows it on IMAX. One extreme to the other. We get the criticism, and then we get the rave reviews of what it really looks like in its own formula. That's obviously going to get people to think and go, 'Well, damn right. I'm going to go see this at the cinema.' Jim has always said to me he wants to bring people back to the movies. And he's a smart enough man to ... to be tactical."

Worthington spoke with reporters on "Avatar Day" but had yet to see the footage or trailer himself. "My mates have all gone and seen it," he said. "They say it's a lot better than it is on the teaser. You're meant to see in on the IMAX. I haven't seen it on the IMAX; my mate went and saw it today and said it blew him away. And he's seen about as much footage as I have. So I suggest seeing it in IMAX more than just the regular [screen]."

As for the film itself, Worthington said that he did not feel any pressure while playing the role of Jake Sully, an ex-Marine thrust into hostilities on an alien planet filled with exotic life forms. As an "avatar," a human mind in an alien body, he is torn between two worlds in a desperate fight for his own survival and that of the indigenous people. (Avatar opens Dec. 18.)

"I'll tell you, with Avatar, it felt like an Australian film," Worthington said. "That's mainly because Jim closes you off. And Jim protects you. But I'd be stupid to say you don't want to make epic-scale movies when I was growing up. I like doing movies that I would go and see. You know? ... It feels big when you see, say, the set, but when you're doing the scene, and you're in the moment, it doesn't feel like, 'Ooh, isn't this cool? I'm doing such a big movie.' I think as soon as it starts to feel like that, I'm going to call time out, because my head's wrong."

Worthington also argued that the famously dictatorial Cameron was actually very collaborative on set. "Ultimate collaborator," he said. "Ultimate collaborator. He's the boss. He'll have final say. But he'll tell you, 'Give me what you got.' And the first thing I ever said to him, 'I've got nothing to lose, man. I'll give you everything.' So I threw everything at him, every idea, everything, and he'll whittle it down to get what he wants. But ... that's your job, is to offer and offer and offer. If you're, you know, designing one of the plants, one of the spaceships, the guys would give him a hundred, a thousand different designs, and Jim would go take that from that and this from this and put it all together to get Jim Cameron's [version]."

Who the hell is Sam Worthington? Is he some kind of big movie star that I didn't know about. You hear a lot about how great his movies are but I can't recall a single one. What the fuck is going on here?

ya that reads like the biggest corporate PR message i've ever seen.  it's like, okay people didn't like the trailer so let's tell them how they're wrong.  The 16 mins that "wowed audiences who were lucky enough to screen it in IMAX 3-D" also aids in damage control, fucking convenient.  it's just trying to hype up the audience into a frenzy again because they didn't "really" experience it.

the more i think about this argument the dumber it is. no one designs their movies for internet viewing. of course they should be viewed in theaters. that doesn't mean you can't see a turd on the smaller screen. it's just a smaller turd.

plus, i went to the theatre.  it was the nail in excitement's coffin.

I've watched movies on an ipod nano before.  And guess what, a good movie is still a good movie, even on a 2-inch screen.  And crap is still crap no matter how big a screen you splatter it across.

am i the only one that kinda liked it? :ponder:

haha. sigourney weaver as an alien.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2009%2Fweavertar1.jpg&hash=a45478738f432cebbe86931002153536c7f0a7f0)

:doh:

MORE. http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/08/pandoras-box-opened-new-avatar-stills.html

'Avatar' tickets already on sale
James Cameron pic hits theaters Dec. 18
Source: Hollywood Reporter

James Cameron's "Avatar" won't reach movie theaters for almost four months, but tickets for the much-hyped sci-fi actioner are already on sale.

Touted as a potentially watershed release -- displaying the creative possibilities both of 3D cinema and motion-capture production techniques -- "Avatar" is scheduled for a global bow on Dec. 18. Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment is co-producing with distributor Fox, which has been stoking exhibitors' appetite for the release through screenings of extended clip reels from the film.

On Friday, the studio staged public screenings of a special 16-minute "Avatar" trailer at 100 Imax theaters. Now, AMC has decided to sell tickets to the movie's opening-day midnight performances.

Online ticketers MovieTickets.com and Fandango on Friday began ringing up sales of "Avatar" performances at more than 75 AMC locations, most of them Imax 3D venues.

"Tickets being put on sale for a film four months in advance is unheard of," MovieTickets exec vp Joel Cohen said. "The fact that tickets have already been sold really speaks to the tremendous buzz the film has already created and the power of James Cameron at the box office."

"Avatar" is Cameron's first dramatic feature since 1997's "Titanic," which is still the highest-grossing film of all time.

"Audiences are hungry for fresh fare with original storytelling," Fandango spokesman Harry Medved said. "And with 'Avatar,' you have no idea where the story is going to go."

Sales of the midnight tickets were said to be "healthy."

It was unclear if any other exhibs will follow AMC's lead in offering early advance ticketing on "Avatar." After all, the studio has yet to hammer out film rental terms with circuits -- though that didn't stop the nation's second-biggest circuit from suggesting the early ticketing.

"AMC came up with the idea," Fox senior vp distribution Chris Aronson said. "They said that if all these people are going to come to our theater to see 16 minutes of a film that doesn't open until December, let's give them an opportunity to buy tickets to the first performances of the show itself."

As a practical matter, no one can offer anything but tickets for the first midnight performances, as nobody knows what the final running time will be once Cameron finishes editing "Avatar."

"Avatar" is likely to tote a running time of between 2 and one-half and three hours.

this is a desperate move imo, shesh they're really scrambling now.

I'm as underwhelmed by the images as anyone, but I still have the feeling like it will be a really good time at the movies.  I still think James Cameron knows how to make a really satisfying movie.  I'm definitely still looking forward to this, and I still think the story idea is pretty cool with loads of potential.  No, the imagery doesn't look as realistic as they've hyped it up to be, but I'll just go in expecting to see a really fun and satisfying animated movie.

Is there any kind of synopsis yet or is it shrouded in mystery? I mean except that (lol)

Quote from: polkablues on January 21, 2006, 04:30:39 PM

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 21, 2006, 03:23:18 PM
"One of the leads is a woman named Zuleika, who is described thusly: A NA'VI WOMAN. She is young, and lithe as a cat, with a long, slender neck, muscular shoulders, and nubile breasts... a statuesque vision. Let's not mince words here... she is devastatingly beautiful. For a girl with a tail. In human age she would be in her late teens."

That's absolutely horrible... it reads like a Bill O'Reilly novel.  Seriously, "nubile breasts"?

Quote from: Pas Rap on August 27, 2009, 06:17:28 AMIs there any kind of synopsis yet or is it shrouded in mystery?

Take your pick:

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 12, 2009, 11:42:15 AMMore than 10 years in the making, Avatar marks Cameron's return to fictional feature-film directing for the first time since 1997's Titanic. The 3-D Avatar centers on ex-marine Jake Sully, who is torn between duty and honor when he finds himself caught in a battle between the heavily armed forces of Earth's most powerful star-faring consortium and an exotic, noble alien race whose entire world is threatened by the human invaders.

Quote from: modage on March 30, 2009, 06:35:47 PMAvatar tells the story of an 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.

Quote from: MacGuffin on August 21, 2009, 07:43:21 PM"Avatar" tells the story of humans who travel to a distant planet and have their brains linked to cloned versions of a native species in order to explore the otherwise unsafe environment. It will be released in its entirety Dec. 18.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg

^^ I don't remember who was the first to make a parody of that Downfall scene, but right now they are abusing of it, every single 'deception' or 'angry' moment can be transferred to it without too much effort, that is excluding the first guy who did it, besides because I love the movie these damn parodies are ruining it for me.

Quote from: matt35mm on August 27, 2009, 06:05:27 AM
I'm as underwhelmed by the images as anyone, but I still have the feeling like it will be a really good time at the movies.  I still think James Cameron knows how to make a really satisfying movie.  I'm definitely still looking forward to this, and I still think the story idea is pretty cool with loads of potential.  No, the imagery doesn't look as realistic as they've hyped it up to be, but I'll just go in expecting to see a really fun and satisfying animated movie.

haha, small jab aside, I completely agree with you, I still hope for the best and it may not change cinema but who cares if it does, I only care that I have a great time at the movies. having said that, the articles of wHorthington and the advance ticket sales are ridiculous.

The Future of Avatar
Exclusive: producer talks sequels/prequels and spin-off book.
by Chris Tilly, IGN UK

While promoting Avatar at Fantastic Fest last week, producer Jon Landau let slip that writer-director James Cameron is planning to pen an accompanying novel after the film hits screens.

That was it in terms of details however, so IGN pursued Landau after the presentation and asked him to elaborate.

"Trying to condense our story into a 140-page screenplay, or two-and-a-half hours of screen time, is no easy task", Landau explained. "There are great ideas and themes and character journeys that we did not have the time to go on in the script or in the movie. I think Jim wants to take the opportunity to flesh those out and make them available to people."

"It' won't be a sequel or prequel, I think the novel will be a novel that spans our story and maybe a little bit beyond it."

So what of the future of the franchise on screen?

"I think we're going to wait to see how the public reacts to the movie. Jim is full of ideas and really great stories that could be told both before our movie and after our movie. But we'll see what the fans want."

So there you have it - Avatar the novel coming soon, while Avatar 2 is pretty much dependant on box office receipts.

i heard it going to be a pop-up book

3 Minute and 30 Second Avatar Trailer Coming!!
Source: ComingSoon.net

ComingSoon.net has confirmed that 20th Century Fox will debut a new trailer for James Cameron's Avatar in theaters this Friday, October 23rd! The trailer, which clocks in at roughly around 3 minutes and 30 seconds, won't be coming online until October 29th. You should really see this in theaters anyways as we've learned that this is THE trailer, the one that will show you much more story (as opposed to the teaser trailer previously released).

Opening in conventional 3D theaters and IMAX 3D on December 18th, the live action movie with a new generation of special effects stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel David Moore, CCH Pounder, Peter Mensah, Laz Alonso, Wes Studi, Stephen Lang and Matt Gerald.

Avatar takes us to a spectacular world beyond imagination, where a reluctant hero embarks on a journey of redemption and discovery as he leads an epic battle to save a civilization. James Cameron, the Oscar-winning director of Titanic, first conceived the film years ago, when the means to realize his vision did not yet exist. Now, after four years of actual production work, Avatar delivers a fully immersive cinematic experience of a new kind, where the revolutionary technology invented to make the film disappears into the emotion of the characters and the sweep of the story.

The story's hero is Jake Sully, a former Marine confined to a wheelchair. Bitter and disillusioned, he's still a warrior at heart. All Jake ever wanted was something worth fighting for, and he finds it in the place he least expected: on a distant world. Jake has been recruited to join an expedition to the moon Pandora, which corporate interests are strip-mining for a mineral worth $20 billion per kilogram on Earth. To facilitate their work, the humans use a link system that projects a person's consciousness into a hybrid of humans and Pandora's indigenous humanoids, the Na'vi. This human-Na'vi hybrid – a fully living, breathing body that resembles the Na'vi but possesses the individual human's thoughts, feelings and personality – is known as an "avatar."

In his new avatar form, Jake can once again walk. His mission is to interact with and infiltrate the Na'vi with the hope of enlisting their help – or at least their acquiescence – in mining the ore. A beautiful Na'vi female, Neytiri, saves Jake's life, albeit reluctantly, because even in his avatar body, Jake represents to her the human encroachment on the Na'vi's unspoiled world.

As Jake's relationship with Neytiri deepens, along with his respect for the Na'vi, he faces the ultimate test as he leads an epic conflict that will decide nothing less than the fate of an entire world.

Early peek at 'Avatar' production design
Hollywood Award honoree Rick Carter gets candid
Source: variety

James Cameron's megabudget sci-fi spectacle "Avatar" is one of the most anticipated films of the year. The road to its upcoming December release has been filled with artistic, financial and creative obstacles. For production designer Rick Carter, the big challenge was getting inside Cameron's head.

Working on "Avatar," Carter had to envision the planet Pandora in detail.

"It was literally as if Jim had been to this place," says Carter, a Hollywood Award honoree for production design. "He was coming back with fragments and glimpses he could express to us, but then we had to try to figure out how to make that come alive for him and something we felt an audience could relate to."

"Avatar" tells the story of an extreme rehabilitation program: In an attempt to walk again, a paraplegic former Marine named Jake travels to the jungles of the extraterrestrial realm called Pandora, home of the Na'vi, a technologically primitive but physically superior race.

To picture Pandora, Carter created what he calls a "lush homegrown forest that's way overscale for anything we've ever experienced, but also has enough alien qualities that you realize what you're seeing is not just a few flowers poked into the midst of an otherwise normal environment. The essence of it is very different."

At night, the forests of Pandora light up like a psychedelic black-light poster. Cameron's inspiration for that, Carter believes, came from his deep-sea diving experiences.

"The whole idea of (that) bioluminescent world at night is something he'd actually witnessed when he was down at the bottom of the ocean during his 'Titanic' time," Carter says. "That bioluminescence is almost like a nervous system of the planet, and that's what's at stake in the movie, as you start to get past the initial foray into the Na'vi culture and seeing the drama start to emerge between the military-industrial complex that wants to exploit the world."

In order to breathe on Pandora, humans have created human-alien hybrids (the eponymous avatars), and it's through one of these creatures that Jake is able to walk again. But will he remain human or go native after he falls in love with one of the locals, a girl named Neytiri? Intergalactic peace depends on it.

What spells success for "Avatar," however, is good old human identification. "The real challenge is whether you feel the emotion coming through from the characters, especially the Neytiri character and ultimately Jake's avatar," says Carter. "When you look into those eyes, do you feel the connection's real? And then, can you give yourself over to it and not look at it at arm's distance and think, 'Yes, that's wonderful technically, but I don't really feel anything.' "

For Carter, "Avatar" is a movie "where the form and the content come together. We can really relate to the digital imagery in a way that not only suspends our disbelief but invites us to be immersed in this new world."

Definitely, "the medium has evolved," says Carter, looking back at his first production-designer gig, on Hal Ashby's "Second Hand Hearts," in 1981. "And with the introduction of all the digital imagery, there's been a whole new ability to create worlds far beyond what it was when I started."

Carter was also there on "Back to the Future" II & III, "Jurassic Park" and "Forrest Gump," among others, and he's moved into worlds where it's all digital and there's motion capture, he says. Along the way, Carter has "found it very interesting to tap into some of the visual effects designers who are coming from the other side of the equation, the post-production, bringing them forward. The two of us collaborate from the beginning on the look of the movie, especially with things that have never been done before."

Carter uses the words "us" and "we" a lot when he talks about his film work. On "Polar Express," he brought on Doug Chang, a visual effects designer. On "Avatar," which Carter calls "a hybrid movie comprisedof live action and motion capture," he turned to Bob Stromberg.

"Bob had been instrumental in the design of much of the ecosystem of the planet Pandora. It just seemed natural to have him share credit. So it's unusual," Carter says of his penchant for collaboration, "but I see it as a way to move into these films. We used to joke we're creating the airplane in flight, because we're actually making the movie but we don't even know the road we're on to create the movie until you do it."

Recently, Cameron told his "Avatar" production designer, "I'm the one who could pose the question, but it took everybody to collaborate, to come together and find the answers."

"He'd never said that before," says Carter, "I just thought I'd leave you with that."

i can't believe how bad this will bomb at the box office.

anyone wanna predict how bad it'll do?

i think it'll make exactly as much as snakes on a plane.  i say this because only people who used the internet for movie news were excited about it. and for avatar it's a few more people but amongst those people there's still some division. so that comes toooo..... $34,014,398.

still. that's 68x better than Delgo.

Quote from: MacGuffin on October 19, 2009, 11:35:23 PM
3 Minute and 30 Second Avatar Trailer Coming!!

Here (http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/avatar/international-trailer)

tomorrow will be on the apple site in hd.

still hopeful, but the colors on the cgi ppl/beasts still look cartoony. oh, and they tell why they go to pandora, or at least one of the reasons.

You know, now that I've accepted that the movie isn't going to be half as good as I was originally hoping, I can deal with this just being a fun James Cameron spectacle.

The dialogue is predictably atrocious.  Why would any character ever say "We're not in Kansas anymore" now?  It's a joke. 
The plot seems to just be an amalgam of all of Cameron's favorite things from the movies he's already made (dropping onto a new planet, the corporation that's just there for the money, the unbelievable, chemistry-free love story, etc...).

Still, Cameron does great action and I can't wait to watch it.

It looks like a better version of something Michael Bay would do.

That's a compliment.

Quote from: Stefen on October 29, 2009, 12:46:46 PM
It looks like a better version of something Michael Bay would do.

That's a compliment.

I agree. Doesn't look that bad.

Quote from: RegularKarate on October 29, 2009, 11:57:15 AM
Still, Cameron does great action and I can't wait to watch it.

Did great action for sure. But who knows what he does now that he's in CG overload.  

Quote from: Stefen on October 29, 2009, 12:46:46 PM
It looks like a better version of something Michael Bay would do.

Michael Bay would at least have the decency to blow real shit up.  I liked the first 90 seconds then come the blue people and my hopes are crushed.

Quote from: modage on October 29, 2009, 01:56:36 PM
Did great action for sure. But who knows what he does now that he's in CG overload.  

NOW?  He's always loved CG.  He was one of the first to start using it right.  I agree that the characters look too bright and cartoonish, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know how to make a good action sequence anymore.  It's his thing.

I'm more worried about the shitty romance aspect.

After Titanic, he may lay the saccharine on way too thick. Did you see all that corniness in that trailer. GROSS.

Action will be awesome, but you can get that from a bunch of filmmakers. Cameron used to make good movies. I hope this is one of them.

yeah the dialogue is redonkulous. was anyone else momentarily expecting him to say "this.. is.. SPARTA!" at the end? it really sounded like he was getting ready to say that.

why would sigourney weaver casually insult a guy who's volunteered to help her crazy experiment? and NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE?? OUTSTANDING??

i'm glad i was primed for extreme disappointment by the other trailer because this made it look much better, but that's still only okay. i wouldn't be interested if the cameron name wasn't behind it.

Quote from: RegularKarate on October 29, 2009, 03:30:09 PM

Quote from: modage on October 29, 2009, 01:56:36 PM
Did great action for sure. But who knows what he does now that he's in CG overload.  

NOW?  He's always loved CG.  He was one of the first to start using it right.  I agree that the characters look too bright and cartoonish, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know how to make a good action sequence anymore.  It's his thing.

In T2 it was still used sparingly, as the compliment to the scene instead of the scene.  I'm not sure I've ever been that involved in an action sequence that was primarily CG because I can't suspend my disbelief.  If they couldn't find a way to film it, I'm generally not going to be invested.  I just fucking hate CG, if I recognize it, I don't want to see it.  (Obvs unless we're talking about an actual animated film, like Pixar.)  This just looks like he's trying to one-up the Star Wars prequels. 

JC: Look!  NOTHING is real! Can you tell? 
US: YES, we can still tell.

I've spent a long time not giving a shit about this movie, and I'm sure as hell not going to start now.

Oh, and insult to injury, Cameron ripped off (http://screenrant.com/avatar-plot-james-cameron-plagiarized-poul-anderson-call-me-joe-ross-32369/) the story.

new yorker piece keeping me interested. i'll see it with low expectations.

Quote from: polkablues on October 29, 2009, 06:09:54 PM
Oh, and insult to injury, Cameron ripped off (http://screenrant.com/avatar-plot-james-cameron-plagiarized-poul-anderson-call-me-joe-ross-32369/) the story.

Whoa! That's really, REALLY bad. That book's plot is so similar...

Quote from: Gamblour. on October 29, 2009, 09:56:26 PM

Quote from: polkablues on October 29, 2009, 06:09:54 PM
Oh, and insult to injury, Cameron ripped off (http://screenrant.com/avatar-plot-james-cameron-plagiarized-poul-anderson-call-me-joe-ross-32369/) the story.

Whoa! That's really, REALLY bad. That book's plot is so similar...

Not really.  The plots are pretty similar, but it's not like that idea is super-original anyway.  The sci-fi/fantasy world has a lot of Go-Tos and using an "avatar" of some sort is one of them.
And that art-work comparison is super-weak.  Ooooh, both characters are on another planet and are blue(ish).

The plot for Aliens is basically Starship Troopers.  It's not really that surprising... the differences lie in the details.

remember that comic ronin?

Submitted without comment.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fravatard.jpg&hash=102c3c1a087931eedc720f4db5ebead65d41eb31)

Quote from: polkablues on November 05, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
Submitted without comment.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fravatard.jpg&hash=102c3c1a087931eedc720f4db5ebead65d41eb31)

Biz you tryin to give us nightmares?  Shoot.

Hoping 'Avatar' is the new face of filmmaking
James Cameron's futuristic thriller, opening next month, may be the most expensive movie ever. And Hollywood is in sore need of a game changer.
By John Horn and Claudia Eller; Los Angeles Times

Inside a dark mixing stage at 20th Century Fox a few weeks ago, writer-director James Cameron, surrounded by nearly a dozen colleagues, stared at a clip from his upcoming movie, "Avatar," unhappy with the look of the precipitous peaks on the horizon.

Circling the summits with a red laser pointer and speaking to his computer-effects team at Weta Digital in New Zealand via videoconference, Cameron came up with a Muhammad-like solution: Shift the mountains to the left.

"Moving a mountain," the 55-year-old filmmaker said, laughing, "is nothing."

Such bravado might be expected from the man who declared, "I'm the king of the world!" during the Academy Awards 11 years ago, when his last feature film, "Titanic," collected 11 Oscars. It was the highest-grossing movie in cinema history.

Throughout his career, in films such as "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" and "The Abyss," Cameron has used eye-popping digital effects to create worlds and characters. But he never has attempted anything as creatively and commercially ambitious as "Avatar," a groundbreaking combination of 3-D filmmaking, photo-realistic computer animation and live-action drama that opens Dec. 18.

"Avatar," a futuristic thriller, may be Hollywood's most expensive movie ever, and many in the industry fervently hope it will transform 21st century moviemaking the way sound and color did decades ago.

The film business, struggling with flat theater attendance, collapsing DVD sales and the serial firing of top executives, certainly could use a game changer -- an immersive moviegoing experience that delivers more than anyone can get from their HDTV or home computer screens. But though "Avatar" might be all that, it also defies conventional Hollywood wisdom that today's blockbuster movies need to be "pre-sold" as bestsellers ("Harry Potter," "The Lord of the Rings"), comic books ("Batman," "X-Men"), toys ("Transformers," the upcoming "Battleship") or based on other movies (every sequel ever made).

Thus the novelty of "Avatar" could also be its biggest liability. And some wonder if the film's plot -- dense with action sequences and special effects, but also featuring a love story between two 10-foot-tall blue aliens -- will resonate with a wide enough audience to steer the movie into profitability.

Hollywood has tracked "Avatar" closely. Many of Cameron's friends -- members of a filmmaking elite that includes Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott -- made pilgrimages to his Santa Monica production house and the Playa del Rey hangars where he worked on the film.

"I was blown away," said Guillermo del Toro, director of "Pan's Labyrinth" and the upcoming "Hobbit" movies. "The creation of this technology is what allows a movie like 'Avatar' to exist."

Said Jim Gianopulos, co-chairman of Fox Filmed Entertainment: "He gets to the edge of the envelope, and then goes as far past it as possible."

To observe Cameron directing "Avatar" is to witness filmmaking as it's never been done before. Whereas most movies add all of their visual effects in post-production, Cameron was able to see fully composited shots in real time: The actors he was directing may have been performing in front of a blank green screen, but Cameron's camera eyepiece -- not to mention giant 3-D television monitors -- immediately displayed lush, synthetic backgrounds.

The filmmaker has spent the better part of a decade developing the technology used in "Avatar," which is set on a distant moon under siege by humans determined to pillage its natural resources. It required the reinvention of bulky 3-D cameras, which had to be downsized to fit into smaller spaces and move with fluidity, and lengthy experimentation with improvements in motion-capture animation, which superimposes animated characters onto real actors, as in the current Disney version of "A Christmas Carol."

As part of his research and development, Cameron directed the 3-D documentaries "Aliens of the Deep" and "Ghosts of the Abyss," which visited the Titanic's underwater wreckage. To overcome what many critics regard as the great flaw of motion-capture animation, the "dead-eye" appearance of characters, Cameron mounted tiny cameras above the faces of his "Avatar" actors, recording their smallest facial expressions and most intimate eye movements.

"What had been missing in motion capture was the 'E' -- the emotion," said "Avatar" producer Jon Landau.

The real test of this hybrid technology, the filmmakers acknowledge, will not be in the 3-D illusion of sending a rocket hurtling toward the audience, but in whether it enhances the tale's emotional resonance.

"Titanic" may have won the Oscar for visual effects, but it was the film's romance that lured millions of repeat viewers. One of Cameron's foremost challenges, then, is to ensure that the lead "Avatar" characters, played by Sam Worthington of "Terminator: Salvation" and Zoe Saldana of the most recent "Star Trek" movie, are as emotionally compelling as were Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet.

"I don't think there's any loss of emotionality or of the acting," Cameron said during a dinner break in his visual effects review. "I think we've reached the point where it looks as real as a blue humanoid character can look."

All the cutting-edge technology to get there -- along with Cameron's well-known perfectionism -- carries a cost.

With current production expenditures of $310 million (which could grow when the final budget is tallied) and a global marketing campaign that could cost as much as $150 million, "Avatar" won't have to do "Titanic" business to make money, but it will have to fill auditoriums around the world for weeks to become profitable.

"This has to be one of the highest-grossing pictures of the year to make it all worthwhile," said Doug Creutz, a media analyst with Cowen & Co.

Before Fox executives agreed to finance the film, Cameron in early 2006 showed them a four-minute "Avatar" test that convinced the studio he could pull it off.

"The revolution, the change that Jim has brought about is that for the first time the CGI-created characters have a reality and an emotionality that completely conveys the actors' performances," said Tom Rothman, co-chairman of Fox Filmed Entertainment. "That was the big leap -- that you would care about a CGI-created character."

That wasn't Cameron's only leap.

The director has broken Hollywood's most prominent budget milestones. "Terminator 2" was the first movie to cost $100 million; "Titanic," the first to hit $200 million. With "Avatar" he appears to be the first to crack $300 million.

"Avatar" joins the movie industry's expanding list of mega-budget undertakings; the most recent "Harry Potter," "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Spider-Man" movies each cost at least $250 million. But unlike those sequels, there's no "pre-awareness" hook, which studio executives increasingly rely on.

To mitigate its risk, Fox took on outside financial partners -- two investor groups from Dune Capital Management and one from Ingenious Film Partners -- which are paying for about two-thirds of the production costs, according to people familiar with the deals. Fox will also get a 15% tax rebate from New Zealand, where all the live-action sequences and most of the effects were done, expected to be between $25 million and $30 million.

Cameron agreed to delay his profit participation until Fox and its investors recoup their costs. Fox will first pocket a double-digit distribution fee for releasing the movie and recover all of its marketing expenses. "Avatar" also will benefit from the higher ticket prices charged by 3-D theaters.

In interviews at Fox's Century City studio, Rothman and Gianopulos, who run the most cost-obsessed operation in Hollywood, said they are comfortable with the movie's economics.

"It's a creatively ambitious movie that is fiscally prudent," said Rothman. "And when you can move the popular culture, particularly with something newly created, historically speaking, that's a path to tremendous success."

"When we take on a movie of this scale," added Gianopulos, "we do it with a great deal of confidence. It would have killed me not to make it."

Fox is mounting an unusual and extensive promotional campaign, including 3-D glasses made from recycled Coke Zero bottles and a 3-D video game from Unisoft. The studio began screening "Avatar" clips last summer, first to European exhibitors at a festival in Amsterdam, then at San Diego's Comic-Con.

In August, the studio declared "Avatar Day," showing 16 minutes of the movie for free at 130 IMAX theaters around the globe, seen by 50,000 to 60,000 people, according to Fox estimates. Initial fanboy reaction wasn't all positive. "If Cameron thinks a film that looks like an Xbox game is the future of cinema . . . then he's mental," said one Web critic.

"I thought anyone who saw the early footage would be a convert," Cameron said of the IMAX previews. "It just seemed that everyone who had seen the footage wanted more."

In one promising sign, at least, early ticket sales to some large-format IMAX screens, particularly in London, have been running at a record pace.

Moreover, Fox can take comfort in the fact that the release of Cameron's "Titanic" was preceded by a yearlong wave of negative press and skepticism. Then it earned $1.8 billion at the box office.

Rothman was at Fox when Cameron made "Titanic," and hanging on his office wall is a present from the director: a child's life preserver with the inscription, "From a fellow survivor."

hype hype hype that machine. hype it!

i really hope cinema isn't dead.

James Cameron explains why Avatar aliens have tails
Source: SciFi Wire

James Cameron appeared on 60 Minutes last night, where he gave Morley Safer—and us—a behind-the-scenes look at how he went from being the director of "the very best flying piranha movie ever made" to the creator of the $400 million 3-D fantasy Avatar.

"This is the film I think I always wanted to make when I set down the path of being a filmmaker," said Cameron.

He also revealed the reason he gave his blue aliens tails—because: "Tails are cool!"

Well, there's actually more to it than that. To learn the rest of the story, check out the video below.


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5737218n&tag=api

or

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxcZuY6in8M


Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs2975DqNjk

Avatar's Cameron shrugs off buzz—and promises a sequel
Source: SciFi Wire

You've heard some of the buzz surrounding filmmaker James Cameron's upcoming 3-D sci-fi epic movie Avatar? Well, Cameron has a message for the haters: You ain't seen nothing yet.

Coming up for air after "four and a half years of intense work," Cameron insists in an exclusive interview that he "consciously made a decision not to read any article or news breaks about Oscar buzz" while he labored to finish the film and also admits that he's been "well aware" of some of the negative fan buzz surrounding the project, based on screenings of early footage and trailers.

"I know there's been a lot of talk and speculation about it, but it's kind of like the generic Oscar buzz out there—it's pretty ridiculous when people haven't even see the movie," he says, addressing the issue. "All anyone has seen is the 25 minutes of various scenes we showed at Comic-Con—and that's not the movie! How can fans judge it by that?"

The director is quick to defend Avatar, which is set on the planet Pandora and features the Na'vi—tall, blue-skinned aliens—as well as human-engineered "avatars" and plenty of high-tech futuristic toys.

"I set out to make a film that's like the stuff that played on the projection screen of my mind when I was a teenager, informed by science fiction," Cameron says. "And I wanted to do original stuff, all those creatures and landscapes and plants and animals that I'd been drawing and noodling out over some 20 years. And fans really love this kind of depth and detail, so when I began Avatar I really put a lot of energy and focus into a sense of completeness in detail of the world, for that very reason."

If fans are "disappointed" with the film's blue alien race, Cameron stresses that "I wasn't going for the alien. I wasn't going for the ugly and strange. I was going for something that's an expression of beautiful human movement in the film. They symbolize the best of us in the way the film works subconsciously, which I feel is aspirational. What they really are is a heightened sense of ourselves and what we could and should be."

Not all the buzz has been negative: The only public screening of the film so far, to the Hollywood Foreign Press Association in Los Angeles this week, generated enough enthusiasm that the movie's now being buzzed as a Golden Globe nominee, HitFix reports.

And if you really like it, Cameron promises more from the universe of Avatar. It "is not true science fiction in the sense of saying, 'This is what contact with an alien species would be like.' It's not about that at all. It's about how we've lost contact with ourselves in a natural state. So if we fail, it all ends there, but if we are successful then we'll make more films, and that world will continue to flesh itself out and be a place that fans can go to."

Cameron insists that the mix of sky-high expectations and negative fan buzz isn't freaking him out. "No, it's good, as we had to sell a movie that wasn't a sequel or remake or part of a franchise or based on a best-seller," he says. "It had no brand awareness, and I was more worried about people not even knowing about the film than them kind of arguing about it or having high expectations or having those dashed."

As you might expect, the director who once called himself "the king of the world" says he's "very confident" that once "even hard-core sci-fi fans see the whole movie, they'll get it, because the film will speak for itself. If I can just get 'em in the damn theater, the film will act on them in the way it's supposed to, in terms of taking them on an amazing journey and giving them this rich emotional experience. And it's not really like any other film, and I think that's its greatest asset—and its greatest deficit. You can't compare it to something else."

Avatar opens Dec. 18. Look for more Avatar coverage soon from the press day in London.

Ha!

There will not be a sequel. It's mathematically impossible for this movie to be profitable enough to warrant a sequel.

Quote from: polkablues on December 09, 2009, 02:49:48 AM
Ha!

There will not be a sequel. It's mathematically impossible for this movie to be profitable enough to warrant a sequel.

Yeah, this movie is going to lose so much money. I have no urge to see it once, really. I will, but only because Cameron won't shut the fuck up about it. Either he is really right or really wrong.

I will see it.  But not opening weekend.  I want opening weekend to sting.

I think it's gonna have a 70M+ weekend ... probably gonna finish with 150M maybe?

A sequel will cost a lot less to produce now that the ''new technology'' is in place... so it could actually help them make their money back.

Still think it looks like shit, the story and the graphics.

Quote from: Pas Rap on December 09, 2009, 12:15:18 PM
A sequel will cost a lot less to produce now that the ''new technology'' is in place... so it could actually help them make their money back.

You really think Cameron's gonna take the easy way out? If this makes enough to get a sequel, he'll invent some other nonsense, like holograms or some shit.

And I'll probably end up seeing that too...

haha maybe you're right! or maybe he won't direct the sequel or something...

I'll trust Cameron on this one. IMHO, he hasn't made a bad movie. In fact, I'd call all of them great (I'm not counting Pirhana II). I'm kind of getting an Aliens vibe from this one....hope it does well...I think it'll easily pull in $300M domestically.

I actually do believe it will not be a flop in the strictest sense, and may even end up being (or at least appearing) profitable.  I do not believe there will be any significant contingent of the audience that will be clamoring for a sequel, and I don't believe the studio will be inclined to go to the trouble of producing one simply because James Cameron's ego demands it.

Honestly, Pas and Derek's box office predictions are probably both conservative.  Cameron's problem, though, is that for them to even be able to make the claim that the movie turned a profit, they'll have to hit at least $400 or 500 million.  For them to ACTUALLY make a profit off the movie, they would likely have to double that, at least.  And that's simply not going to happen.

you mean because of marketing etc the movie's bill will border 1 billion? seems high, no? why would they do it in the first place?

i think it will flop in the strictest sense.

Quote from: Pas Rap on December 09, 2009, 02:36:31 PM
you mean because of marketing etc the movie's bill will border 1 billion? seems high, no? why would they do it in the first place?

They never expected it to cost so much.  The estimated budgets (including marketing costs) that are being reported are typically around half a billion, and that is likely still hiding all the research and development costs for which Cameron had a blank check to go invent new shiny things with.  If you were to factor in all the actual costs of making Avatar, it's almost certainly upwards of 800 million or more.  

It seems the production reached a certain point where it was clear the budget would never allow the movie to make a profit, but they had put far too much into it to scrap the thing, so the best they can hope for now is to pack in a handful of weekends, minimize their losses and wash their hands of the whole experience.

Quote from: picolas on December 09, 2009, 03:33:59 PM
i think it will flop in the strictest sense.

I'd like to think you're right, because I enjoy schadenfreude as much as the next guy, but I don't get the sense it'll fall flat on its face like a Cutthroat Island or Battlefield Earth.  I would be prepared to hear the word "underperformed" a lot.

Team America warned us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt_7_2hpANo

Premiered in London and cities across North America today...from the few reviews that have been posted, seems to be very positive.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/avatar-film-review-1004052868.story

Quote from: Derek on December 10, 2009, 06:00:21 PM
Premiered in London and cities across North America today...from the few reviews that have been posted, seems to be very positive.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/avatar-film-review-1004052868.story

Eh, I think "positive" is a little generous. From what I've read the consensus thus far has been "not a total trainwreck" which means mediocre to semi-good which given the hype-machine and budget behind this son of a fuck still adds up to EPIC FAIL in my book. But we'll see.

'Son of a fuck' sounds like you're a bit biased. I hope this is as good as Cameron makes it out to be. The guy never fails to blow his own horn, but he puts all he has into everything he does...so, I'm optimistic. The initial trailers and designs left me a little cold, but I've gotten more excited the more I've seen..(his dialogue usually leaves something to be desired though)..

HOLY SHIT (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/)

100% from 8 reviews so far.

We'll see.

Dear Mr. or Mrs. Reviewer,

Enclose in the envelope is a blank check.  Please give Avatar the best possible review.  Make it glow, baby.

Love,
James Cameron

If it's good, I'd like to see it do well.

That said, I bet Cameron's chomping at the bit to read Kenneth Turan's review.

Quote from: w a  l   r    u     s on December 11, 2009, 10:41:20 AM
Dear Mr. or Mrs. Reviewer,

Enclose in the envelope is a blank check.  Please give Avatar the best possible review.  Make it glow, baby.

Love,
James Cameron

exactly.

there is no escaping the fact that some ppl still havn't heard of this movie. and worse than that, now that it's suddenly been spoken about in the media (across all news shows in an all out effort to FABRICATE INTEREST at the LAST possible moment) it suffers from King Kong syndrome, where everytime it gets mentioned it is presented in this pre-packaged form of "this movie is gonna be huge! it's what everyone wants right now!"

that always backfires. i've always been weary of anytime a talk show host, for example, says to his guest "this movie is gonna be a huge blockbuster"-- they only say that cos it has the budget of one, and there can be no doubt in the publicity that it will be worth it to hav spent that much money. what the media and everyone in entertainment (being payed profusely out the ass of the studio) wants to believe is still FAR from the reality. no one gives a shit about this movie, it does not appear interesting to anyone, for all its hype it doesn't have the amazing premise of District 9 and the genuine interest that movie created.

this movie will be the purest exercise in hype. it will have a biggish opening weekend. but like King Kong no one asked for it, and while i liked that movie and hope to like this one, it can't hide the fact everyone will only see DOLLAR SIGNS when they go see Avatar. the media and the hype are appealing to ppl's sense of ENTITLEMENT, "oh they spent $300million to entertain me?? oh, of course." no. they spent $300million on a roll of film, and hundreds of millions more telling you to be impressed by that number.

just look at everytime the story gets mentioned. it's just a side-note. "the story is about some other planet and this guy sam whoever the fuck asked for this guy worthington, and -- $300MILLION!" the casting of Sam Worthington and the utter inexplicability of his appearance in all these major blockbusters is also representative of the ass-backwards manufactured interest that runs rampant in major films these days.

i'm personally excited by the idea that it could possibly be good (also like king kong). yes the marketing has been self-assured wackness from the beginning.

I just saw james cameron at a red carpet saying "yeah, the ad guys are showing this as sort of a bro movie, but it's really a love...."

So, that weirds me out, that he would call them out like that.

In some weird attempt to play the other side too.

just thought it odd, that he would do that.

that movie is out of control.

there is often a time when people sit down and look what they've done and see it has been blown out of proportions.

i think this is what is happening to james cameron now.

like p said, no one asked for this story. it's a run of the mill sci fi story like any other and now it's hailed as a revolution.

oh well.

The 'we didn't ask for this story' argument holds no water. No one is being made to go see it, but likely everyone on this board will...at least everyone posting in this thread.

I think people are letting their perceptions of Cameron bleed into their view of this as well. If Avatar was his follow-up to True Lies instead of Titanic, everybody would be singing a different story.

it's a global campaign; when I was overseas I saw ads for it everywhere.  It'll make its money back in the end.

derek i agree completely, since when does asking for something have anything to do with it?

besides couldn't it be argued that the moment people ask for something might potentially be the worst time to give it to them. I would think so, very few movies have impressed me because i felt like it was the climate for such film to come out.  the best shit comes outta left field and lays you out, wanting more.  the moment you actually get more, it sucks.

you missed my point.

like king kong, it was a story that no one cared to hear. i HOPE it's great and i HOPE i like it as much as that, at least, but the only reason anyone i know is mentioning the film is cos it cost a lot of money --- NO ONE is saying "hey that sounds like a good story, i wonder what pandora is like"..

i made a direct comparison to District 9 -- and i realise that no one asks for any story that isn't a sequel -- but the point is from experience with that film, everyone i knew was actually intrigued by the story, the premise caught their interest. if everyone watches this it will be because of the hype, and that's smart business obviously, and i hope it's good cos i like cameron and i'm a titanic-defender, but no one cares at this point about the story whatsoever.

i somehow lose more and more interest in this everytime i see its TV spot. unless you band of fools convince me otherwise, i will not see it theatrically as no one i know will make room for this on their mustsee holiday movie list. im saying it sinks into the Abyss opening weekend.

On a tv show I was watching, it said the budget was $300 million and advertising will cost $200 million so I don't know how this will be able to get its money back, but I remember in 1998, there was little hype for Titanic. Before the film was released, E News actually ran a segment about how overblown that budget was and since there were no stars in the film it was going to be a guranteed bomb. If I also remember correctly, the film never scorched any weekend records (or even came close), but it's consistent good sales week in and week out is what propelled it to the juggernaut that it is now.

Like I said, I don't know how Avatar will do good business considering its budget is inflated even by Titanic comparisons, but even if it fails financially and is still a good movie, I will be happy. It could be a Cleopatra level bomb and almost destroy a studio (like that film did for Fox in '63) and if it's good, it's quality is that all that will matter for me. I'm pretty convinced the visuals won't live up to the hype, but the story and filmmaking still could.

I don't care about any of the numbers.  I'm going to see this as soon as I can on the biggest screen I can find in L.A.  I expect that I will be entertained.  The reviews so far are good enough for me to be confident in that expectation.  The big-ass screen will also help.

If you think you're ever going to see this, why not watch it in IMAX 3D?  I kind of regret not seeing The Dark Knight in IMAX because I know now that nothing can duplicate that experience.  I'm excited that the IMAX and the 3D aspect of Avatar aren't afterthoughts, but were always planned for as the ideal way to experience the movie.

I've kinda fallen out of love with going to the movies, except for danky art cinemas.  Any mainstream movie, I wait until Blu-Ray.  This is the first time in a long time that an "event movie" seemed worth actually going to see in the best theater you can find with ear-blistering, bowel-shaking 7.1 DTS ES sound and a screen so big you kind of want to wet your pants before anything even starts playing on it.  So even if this is James Cameron's worst movie, I'm gonna have a lot of fun come Friday.

Remember, it's not real IMAX.

Also: after the good reviews I actually bought tix for (fake!) IMAX 3D this Saturday.  :yabbse-embarassed:

I had very mild interest in seeing this. It was only cameron's involvement what called my attention. never cared to see any of the footage of trailers, all i've seen are a couple of stills. but now the reviews are too ecstatic. and really, the only cameron film i can't rewatch form time to time is titanic, and only because it takes three fucking hours to offer something different.

now i'm dying to see on digital 3d and enjoy the hell out of it... this is going to make a ton of money in the end. not only on box office, but dvd and blu ray sales, etc etc...studios don't take risks THAT big, by this time they probably found a way to have a worst scenario that's not even a worst scenario. in the end, who gives a shit?

One thing I like about Cameron's films are the simple, identifiable archtypes and straightforward good vs. evil stories, cliches as some might call them. He does these well, and they're relatable to everyone in the audience. I think it frees him up to push the envelope in areas such as the technical side of things. I would argue this simplicity is part of what makes the original Star Wars movies work so well and are considered classics, where the prequels got bogged down in convoluted trade embargo and tax storylines.

titanic wasn't too straight forward on the good vs. evil.  or the abyss.  don't oversimplify great filmmaking.

well if i remember correctly, billy zane had the "obnoxious villain boyfriend who mocks the poor boy and thinks he's above all"  attitude from pretty much the moment he enters the movie, and winslet's mom has that "antagonist mother in law" thing going on from the get go. di caprio went for the "bohemian vagabond" who (quote): "wants to float through the wind like a leaf". so yes, as great as the filmmaking was, it was HEAVILY into this simplistic crap and that's mostly why I can't stand it save from the breathtaking moments and the awesome climax.

and I'm not even counting the villain's sidekick: the mean buttler. or the celine dion song at the end.

Yea boss.

I'm not oversimplifying great filmmaking. I'm talking about not overstuffing the background which takes away from the forward narrative. Cameron writes broad characters, you disagree? Take a look at Cal in Titanic or David Warner's character. Or Paxton's pirate-who-finds-his-real-treasure-where-he-least-expects-it. Or any of the colorfol cast of characters in the Abyss.

I'm not knocking it, I like it. Simple's good, and it works. He's not re-inventing the wheel with his dramatic arcs or his characters but they serve well his vision. That's why he gets the large audiences he gets, but he excels in other areas like the visuals and effects. Take away the spectacle and see how many people go see a Cameron movie.

And I love Cameron.

I ain't gonna lie. I saw Titanic 5 times in the theater. I preordered the double VHS in full screen. lulz. 

oh no.

firsties?

this was amazing. Pandora is gorgeous and the last hour of the film is just about the best action film ever made.

it's classic Cameron, for better or worse. the dialogue and characterization is almost unimportant in a film like this. it isn't exactly about the intricacies of the human condition, it's about huge broad spectacle on the grandest scale you can imagine. personal discomfort with 3D might affect your interest in the first hour, which might also be tedious upon rewatching it (and i definitely WILL see this again), but like Cameron's other films i mostly just rewatch the climaxes.

without giving anything away, for all its broad characters (the "bad guy" is especially ludicrous in his one-note evilness), there's a lot of heavy-handed subtlety in the film. there's some great references to Cameron's other action classics, some quite major and i would say very clever, which i'll talk about once others hav seen it.

it's a bit flawed. some of the worst dialogue is self-aware enunciations about its own grandeur. for example when we first see the flying mountains, which you've already seen in the trailer, Michelle Rodriguez says "you should see your faces right now.." well my face was all like "seen it!". no, the most special parts of the film are where it forgets to be self-consciously impressive and just goes balls to the wall for good storytelling through action.

i'm ready to defend this film cos i don't love it blindly. its got a few holes, mainly in Sigourney Weaver's character whom you get an idea must hav had some scenes cut. the way the Na'vi treat her is just not consistent but i believe it doesn't ruin the film. in the end, it's not like king kong cos even tho the story is made out of old elements it still holds lots of surprises. and i don't think we've ever seen anything like it before.


worked
pandora and its people,
the last hour,
sam worthington

failed
very little,
could have used more info in general about pandora and earth

winner
district 9

Your reviews are always the best. You always deliver on the bulletpoints. I hope you're not pulling a GT (loving popcorn more than you should), but I trust you.

Worthington is actually good? The dude was probably the worst thing about TeG and I was ready to give up on him, but this gives me hope.

I'm sort of stoked. Jim Cameron is doing it big and that's always awesome, and a bit silly. I'm gonna try and catch a weekend showing.

Is it a gamechanger?

Quote from: ρ on December 16, 2009, 09:21:54 PM
firsties?

this was amazing. Pandora is gorgeous and the last hour of the film is just about the best action film ever made.

it's classic Cameron, for better or worse. the dialogue and characterization is almost unimportant in a film like this. it isn't exactly about the intricacies of the human condition, it's about huge broad spectacle on the grandest scale you can imagine. personal discomfort with 3D might affect your interest in the first hour, which might also be tedious upon rewatching it (and i definitely WILL see this again), but like Cameron's other films i mostly just rewatch the climaxes.

without giving anything away, for all its broad characters (the "bad guy" is especially ludicrous in his one-note evilness), there's a lot of heavy-handed subtlety in the film. there's some great references to Cameron's other action classics, some quite major and i would say very clever, which i'll talk about once others hav seen it.

it's a bit flawed. some of the worst dialogue is self-aware enunciations about its own grandeur. for example when we first see the flying mountains, which you've already seen in the trailer, Michelle Rodriguez says "you should see your faces right now.." well my face was all like "seen it!". no, the most special parts of the film are where it forgets to be self-consciously impressive and just goes balls to the wall for good storytelling through action.

i'm ready to defend this film cos i don't love it blindly. its got a few holes, mainly in Sigourney Weaver's character whom you get an idea must hav had some scenes cut. the way the Na'vi treat her is just not consistent but i believe it doesn't ruin the film. in the end, it's not like king kong cos even tho the story is made out of old elements it still holds lots of surprises. and i don't think we've ever seen anything like it before.


worked
pandora and its people,
the last hour,
sam worthington

failed
very little,
could have used more info in general about pandora and earth

winner
district 9

Quote from: Stefen on December 16, 2009, 09:34:41 PM
Your reviews are always the best. You always deliver on the bulletpoints. I hope you're not pulling a GT (loving popcorn more than you should), but I trust you.

Worthington is actually good? The dude was probably the worst thing about TeG and I was ready to give up on him, but this gives me hope.

I'm sort of stoked. Jim Cameron is doing it big and that's always awesome, and a bit silly. I'm gonna try and catch a weekend showing.

Is it a gamechanger?

yes worthington is actually good. i havn't seen his american stuff but i know him from his (forgettable) career in australia. it's still inexplicable to me why he's been given such excellent opportunities but here he definitely begins to earn them. Cameron loves strong female characters but i think in this film he shifts to the dudes a lot more.

not a gamechanger. but i hope the best for it cos Cameron has his heart in the right place. he WANTS to make a gamechanger, but i just don't think this is it. it has set up a good foundation that i thinK Zemeckis was trying to accomplish, but it all comes down to the story. might be left to PJ and Spielberg to knock it out of the park with Tintin.

regarding the cartoonishness of computer animation. i think it comes with the territory of 3D. for something to look good in 3D there must be some precise control of the shading, and that's just always going to be unnatural. no one has that kind of precise vision. we do but we never think it's that special. so it's weird, 3D is trying to recreate from scratch the basic awesomeness of what it is to be able to SEE. it seems a simple and obvious statement but i think that's the second level of what Jim was trying to achieve here. a common phrase of the film is "i see you". a lot of drama takes place in the simple dilation of a pupil, the expansion of vision, the recognition of another mind. it's like real alien contact.

but you hav to run with it. district 9, Where the Wild Things Are, and Benjamin Button are the absolute pinnacle of special effects integration in my mind. they are the true game changers in TWO dimensional vision. so to be aware of the possibilities of 3D is the next level, in that sense Jim is pushing to new frontiers. he doesn't just want to make cartoons in 3D, like Zemeckis is doing, he wants to move into this new area with a new consciousness.

the first half of the movie is amazing.

the story holds nothing new. to me it most notably echoes Princess Mononoke and The New World, particularly in its focus on love and nature. unlike those movies, however, there is no poetic sensibility going on here, but you wouldn't expect that from Cameron.

there's a huge focus on nature in the first half, but its most interesting concept is only barely touched on and exists primarily to validate the sanctity of Pandora. which is fine. Pandora itself is indeed gorgeous. being introduced to its beauty was easily the most exciting part of the film for me. and it's absolutely stunning in 3D (coming from someone who hates 3D).

without giving anything away, i didn't like the direction the film was taking in the second act. it becomes too much of a spectacle and kind of abandons the poise and subtle intricacy of the first hour. the end is just absurd in its naivety. i wasn't expecting anything more than a good popcorn flick but i couldn't help but be disappointed after the first act built the foundation so beautifully.

minor spoils
the characters are all pretty two dimensional, as can be expected from a James Cameron film. but i'm a sucker when good performances give birth to otherwise dead characters and Avatar thankfully has one example. it's no small feat to make a human/alien romance work, but the film achieves that with Zoe Saldana's performance. and as trivial as it was, i liked the love story. there's definitely a huge TNW vibe going on there, with Worthington's character growing an emotional bond to a new world / way of life through the eyes of the woman he's falling for, minus the ethereal delicacy.

the action riffs LOTR and the SW prequels. it's nothing you haven't seen, but still pretty enjoyable and exciting.

maybe more thoughts later. or not. i'm going to bed.

OK, now I'm excited again.... and CONFUSED!  :crazyeyes:

me too. VERy confused. trailerwha? Sam Whoyton? consider me convinced otherwise, hope restored, and all that.

i agree with what has been said...
the only proper way to see this is on imax 3d. otherwise really, there's not much going on. the concept is fantastic, but cameron is only interested in two dimensional characters and situations. the villains are just laughable. giovani ribissi's character had potential to be richer but this is definitely not that movie. the romance was ok. everything regarding the story is just "ok", and that's the big weakness. i don't see myself rewatching this movie ever again, unless is re released in a few years in 3d again.

the visuals are stunning. just simply stunning. it's the first time 3d makes sense in a movie. the most exciting thing to me, however is the thought of what could be done by other filmmakers (or even cameron himself) in the future. I would have loved a film with this technology that doesn't have a silly plot, undeveloped characters, a naive "green" message and the corniness cameron has become synonymous with. let's hope someone does a kubrick and really changes the game.

george lucas can go fuck himself.
and I don't wanna see another movie ever again.
it's an overwhelmingly good movie.

First off, I had some trepidations from the first trailer that made the film look like Jar Jar's planet rehashed, and then there's my hatred for Michelle Rodriguez. But seeing it as a whole, I was completely won over. Not even Rodriguez's one face acting look ruined this. I do agree the first hour or so was a bit sluggish, but that time does well in showcasing the excellent 3D. But then there's a point where Worthington's character shuts his eyes and the screen goes to black. From that point on the film kicks into gear and it is Cameron at his best (though, overall, the film is not his best). The film's running time blows by, and that's both good for the pace, but bad for the Matrix meets Dances With Wolves story because, as P pointed out, scenes felt missing, and it does not round out the characters. The romance was credible, yet flat. However, I was not expecting, nor ready, for the emotional connection I felt that put me on the brink of tears. It's Sully's love of the land more than his love of Neytiri that is relatable. Understandable because Pandora is beautiful to look at.

it reminded me much more of miyazaki's films in terms of story and green message.

I damned near busted out "Near, far, wherever you are" three times with this...Need to see it again.

Also, I dig blue chicks now.

Quote from: polkablues on December 09, 2009, 03:43:04 PM
They never expected it to cost so much.  The estimated budgets (including marketing costs) that are being reported are typically around half a billion, and that is likely still hiding all the research and development costs for which Cameron had a blank check to go invent new shiny things with.  If you were to factor in all the actual costs of making Avatar, it's almost certainly upwards of 800 million or more.  

It seems the production reached a certain point where it was clear the budget would never allow the movie to make a profit, but they had put far too much into it to scrap the thing, so the best they can hope for now is to pack in a handful of weekends, minimize their losses and wash their hands of the whole experience.

Don't forget about product tie-ins.

On Pandora radio, of course:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2Ffvkcjp.jpg&hash=c9e14f36cd4202f698cdda970c8ef761e1f059b5)

All the amazing technical acheivement and artistry in this film is wasted on its below par script that features one of the worst movie villains of recent memory. I wish the love story had been given centre-stage as I, too felt echoes of The New World. I found the idea of "I see you" quite powerful - the most inspiring scene of the whole film to me being where Natiri finally meets Jake as human. The rest of the story was stale and predictable and dragged everything down.

I thought Worthington was very good but the the narration and framing made it diffucult to relate to him as a character - he became more of an avatar for the audience. Everyone else just felt like tools of the ham-fisted, central story-line.

People can throw around "popcorn flick" as much as they want - I really wanted to enjoy Avatar (even if only at that level) but the amount of effort that went into this warrants more and I ultimately found it to be a frustrating let-down. To be honest the only game-changer for me this year was District 9 - raising the bar in terms of what I have come to expect from a "popcorn flick" in all departments.

3d is now officially a non-issue to me. At it's very best (here) it's still only icing on the cake.

Can someone counsel me on how to enjoy this film despite it's flaws?

I did not like this.
minor spoils:
The 3d was intriguing at first and I was totally on board for at least the first half of the movie. Some of the images were gorgeous and I can definitely say I've never seen CGI look so good but it still didn't blow me away. The story was pretty whack and the dialogue was awful. I didn't find the action scenes that enthralling or nail-biting. I really wanted to be wowed by the end but it just never happened. I don't see how the technology they discover late in the movie about the planet Pandora is that amazing considering that they've already developed the Avatar technology which seems pretty incredible. It would've been great to have seem just a glimpse of what Earth looked like 150 years from now. The coolest reference to this though is when Jake says something like "Where we come from there is no green..."

So you can show a lot of blue titties and basically show two blue things fucking and you can drop curse words left and right but you can't show the blood from an arrow wound? I think this might have benefited (for me i guess, not the prospect of this thing ever making money) from being rated R. There is a lot of violence in the movie but even the humans seemed like mystical creatures when put in this world. At least in District 9 when people got fucked up it was gruesome and believable.

I know there are some things that I haven't seen this year but out of all the big ones (Stark Trek, D9, Wild things, Avatar) that are relying heavily on current top of the line special effects...I'm just really disappointed in this year.
I don't really want district 9 to be my favorite movie of the year but I'm starting to think that that is going to be the case.

220 millions worldwide first weekend... woah

Quote from: Pas Rap on December 20, 2009, 12:19:25 PM
220 millions worldwide first weekend... woah

jeeesus. think of what independent filmmakers could do with money like that.

Quote from: Redlum on December 20, 2009, 07:48:11 AM

Can someone counsel me on how to enjoy this film despite it's flaws?

pretend they're no big deal like everyone else.

Quote from: pete on December 18, 2009, 06:14:46 PM
it reminded me much more of miyazaki's films in terms of story and green message.

yes. but miyazaki never uses generic cliche villains like the ones in avatar to make his point.

I just think people are getting a little carried away with this. Everyone is suddenly acting as if a predictable script and therefore story development is not important because  the film is a visual marvel. It is, certainly, and for that alone it should be seen. Anyway I never liked star wars so this is definitely not my cup of tea.

saw it last night IMAX 3D. i give it a 7.75... yes, there is a solid reason for this distinction from an 8 and a 7.5 score.

agreed with other sentiments, though i'll go so far to say the average action sci fi movie of this kind usually has a solid set up, bad 2nd act and horrible closer.  in this case the first two thirds of the film were pretty on the correct note for tone and restraint (particularly the diaglog). however, even though the ending was heavy handed, it still wasn't to the point of being over the top for this genre. i easily got over some of the cheeseball stuff, cuz i never rolled my three dimensional eyes once! :P

i have to say it looked utterly real by my tastes, maybe it was the 3d goggle mediary that abstracts the effects. it always takes me half a 3D movie to not see the flickering strobe projector and double images. also in general, and maybe it's just my eyes, i find foreground stuff very hard to pull off in all 3D movies, i still go kinda cross eyed in an attempt to make the double image singular.  3d works best when it's mid-foreground to background imo. it's the wide shots that i really loved in avatar.  my fav stuff was when they were on the top of the tree just before flight and the camera craned birds eye above them, i honestly felt that sensation you get at the top of a roller coaster climb.

solid movie, not a let down.

Saw this today in IMAX 3D.

The first half of Dances with Wolves in 2154 is right in James Cameron's wheelhouse. The attention to detail in this movie is like nothing I've ever seen before. It raises the bar. I couldn't believe how immersed I felt in 3D, particularly with some of the evening shots in the forest of Pandora. The second half of the film was too heavy-handed for my taste. We understand Cameron's story has a peaceful, anti-war message without the subtle political jabs. Cameron succeeded early by making his aliens feel human right through the CG. The references to "terror" and that little "shock and awe" comment soured some of the earlier beauty. In a movie like Dances with Wolves, Costner had the benefit of fusing well understood history with fiction. Cameron jumps head first into our daily nightmare; a polarized world full of Glenn Becks and Michael Moores respectively. What makes this film a B+ for me is Cameron's personal political statement within the framework of a story we're supposed to be lost in. He's great at making his CG shots feel genuine, yet invisible. Now he just needs to do the same thing with his political bias.

*takes deep breath*

i think people are being a bit cynical about the characters in avatar being '1D'. i'm not into this 'fad' about expecting multi-dimensional characters, all the time, in every contemporary story. i had the same impression about giovani ribisi's character being a caricature of corporate greed. i am okay with that. he plays golf in his office, who gives a shit. we know what he and that orange-tanned marine stand for.

but what i want to say is that, aside from the media mammoth it needed to be in order to work, this movie is an event.  yesterday, i went to a nativity play with my sister. we have a cousin who's a priest from the missionaries of the holy spirit. if you don't know who they are , they're this really laid back congregation. i'm not very religious but these guys drink and smoke and talk about god in a way that's not intimidating. so after the nativity play, there was a party and i was talking to an ex priest who's now teaching philosophy and theology, and he was saying that after he saw the movie he couldn't wait to go back and talk about it to his students, because of how dense the story and its universe are. to me, that's fucking cool. i like it when teachers talk about neo to explain shit from the aeneid. or when they bring up darth vader to explain the concept of a tragic hero. i think i prefer that level of enjoyment from movies to technical discussions about lighting or directing or 'a weak third act', and i know that makes me sound ignorant to some of you. i don't think i'll ever be able to talk about a movie in the same level of detail some of you do. but i  think it has to do with a difference of understanding what stories are and mean. stories bring sense to our lives.

i'll stop this for a bit.

i will never forget the day i went to see avatar. i'm not saying this movie is perfection, but man, look around you. a big part of the world has embraced mediocrity. twilight, the books and movies, are huge. think about the useless works of creativity that get produced every day. all the bad music. to me that is a genuinely depressing thought. we're very distracted. it's increasingly hard to find something that inspires you massively that doesn't happpen on your computer screen or your blackberry.  avatar is big and it is inspiring.  say that it's an overblown, opportunistic vehicle to cash in merchandise and wanting to be a pop phenomenon badly, but don't call it mediocre.   cameron is not a hack.
compared to the formalism of peter jackson , or the exhaustion of lucas' and spielberg's creativity, james cameron is the best fucking director working in that scale. he doesn't need to throw that bullshit about making movies 'for the fans' to sound convincing, he knows that his legacy has to do with quality and making a movie that's a generational frame or reference.   whenever i think about john connor wearing the public enemy  t-shirt in terminator 2, i feel that.  i don't care if it's a masterpiece or a let down or if it lived up to the hype or not. i like that this movie will be discussed for years to come, because it does push a lot of ideas forward, is challenging and inspiring.

what does avatar inspire you to do

being less lazy and getting shit done.

Quote from: cronopio 2 on December 20, 2009, 08:25:36 PM
long post

Well that was a good post. I don't know if I mix up your life with some other member's life but I think you're pretty much "a man of the world", something about diplomatic work in your family right? Anyway, it shows. Smart guy.

Quote from: cronopio 2 on December 20, 2009, 08:25:36 PM
*takes deep breath*

i think people are being a bit cynical about the characters in avatar being '1D'. i'm not into this 'fad' about expecting multi-dimensional characters, all the time, in every contemporary story.

I've been reading comments like this all over the internet. I don't get the "cynical" tag everyone who doesn't go ape shit over this movie has to live with now. It's certainly nothing new or over intellectual in asking or expecting a better screenplay. every critic who has praised this film to the skies has not been able to overlook that aspect of the film. I think is more cynical to say "yeah it's badly written but it looks really good, so anyone who doesn't enjoy it is a pretentious asshole". some idiot in some other site actually said that complaining that the characters are underdeveloped is like seeing a beautiful landscape and complain that "i already saw the picture". Also, expecting good characters in a movie is no "fad", and when some movie shows up with unidimensional characters and works, it works. But when Finding Nemo has more complex characters than your space epic about a cultural clash with political undertones it means you could have done better.

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on December 13, 2009, 07:49:17 PM
On a tv show I was watching, it said the budget was $300 million and advertising will cost $200 million so I don't know how this will be able to get its money back, but I remember in 1998, there was little hype for Titanic. Before the film was released, E News actually ran a segment about how overblown that budget was and since there were no stars in the film it was going to be a guranteed bomb. If I also remember correctly, the film never scorched any weekend records (or even came close), but it's consistent good sales week in and week out is what propelled it to the juggernaut that it is now.

Like I said, I don't know how Avatar will do good business considering its budget is inflated even by Titanic comparisons, but even if it fails financially and is still a good movie, I will be happy. It could be a Cleopatra level bomb and almost destroy a studio (like that film did for Fox in '63) and if it's good, it's quality is that all that will matter for me. I'm pretty convinced the visuals won't live up to the hype, but the story and filmmaking still could.

The thing with Titanic was that it was a love story (or human to human love story - i don't know the Avatar plot).
I'm thinking this won't be able to do as well because a lot of people will be alienated by the weird sci-fi stuff.
I like Star Wars and this looks too weird to me.

It's going to do well because of what it is and the time it's released, but I don't know that it will beat any of the recent blockbusters.

Titanic did have a love story that caught on with the public, but I don't believe any future films will be remiss to beat its box office just because they don't have the same love story that Titanic featured or one distinctly similar. Avatar does challenge audiences to find endearment in weird characters, but so did Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and any Speilberg science fiction story along with numerous other films.

But my ultimate point is that I didn't believe the film would stand much chance to exceed its budget, but a $220 million opening weekend worldwide is a good start to proving me wrong.

Wow.

So Cameron's not the greatest writer. But his movies are pretty well his own vision start to finish, which is pretty rare, especially among movies this large in scale money-wise. Maybe his characters lack certain dimensions people feel they need to enjoy a movie, but I really don't know what dimensions are missing. It's not a character piece, and why are people getting pissy if they're not getting what they shouldn't have expected anyhow? Cameron's not a great writer, as I said before, but this is not news.

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on December 21, 2009, 11:54:36 AM
Titanic did have a love story that caught on with the public, but I don't believe any future films will be remiss to beat its box office just because they don't have the same love story that Titanic featured or one distinctly similar. Avatar does challenge audiences to find endearment in weird characters, but so did Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and any Speilberg science fiction story along with numerous other films.

But my ultimate point is that I didn't believe the film would stand much chance to exceed its budget, but a $220 million opening weekend worldwide is a good start to proving me wrong.

I paid $17.50 for my IMAX 3D ticket, including glasses. I wonder how skewed final box office figures will look based on IMAX and 3D sales. These past couple of years have produced quite a few of these "spendy" 3D movies. If anything breaks Titanic's record it will almost certainly be a 3D flick.

Quote from: Myxo on December 21, 2009, 12:29:20 PM

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on December 21, 2009, 11:54:36 AM
Titanic did have a love story that caught on with the public, but I don't believe any future films will be remiss to beat its box office just because they don't have the same love story that Titanic featured or one distinctly similar. Avatar does challenge audiences to find endearment in weird characters, but so did Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and any Speilberg science fiction story along with numerous other films.

But my ultimate point is that I didn't believe the film would stand much chance to exceed its budget, but a $220 million opening weekend worldwide is a good start to proving me wrong.

I paid $17.50 for my IMAX 3D ticket, including glasses. I wonder how skewed final box office figures will look based on IMAX and 3D sales. These past couple of years have produced quite a few of these "spendy" 3D movies. If anything breaks Titanic's record it will almost certainly be a 3D flick.

That's a good point because when Titanic broke all records, it only broke them in matters of how much money it made. Other movies still sold more tickets than Titanic did, but ticket price inflation allowed earlier financial records to be broken. The newfound popularity of 3-D is destroying all sense of what it means for a normal escalation in prices. Titanic will not only be dethroned eventually, but its days are definitely numbered now.

Complaints about this film are equally valid and invalid.  If character and story are the most important part of a film to you then why are you watching Avatar in the first place?  Of course it's frustrating that this kind of visual mastery is "wasted" on something with a crummy script.... but that's usually the way it goes so why not enjoy what it does have to offer?

I was pretty blown away by the look of this thing.  I never thought all these faddy things I normally hate in movies could come together and work so well.  Cameron will continue to push everyone to try harder.

The dialogue was awful and almost every character was just a character from a different Cameron movie  (Rodriguez is playing Vasquez etc...).  There were some cringe-worthy moments at the beginning script-wise, but just as my eyes got used to the 3-D as I got sucked into the movie, my brain got used to those awful moments and stopped cringing ("You're not in Kansas anymore") and started either letting it slide or laughing out loud ("ENHANCE!" and "Unobtainium").

The only thing I was really disappointed with was the last twenty minutes or so.  Cameron usually writes amazing action sequences... the action at the end of this was impressive for another director, but wasn't quite as good as I was hoping for.  Lord of The Rings really pushed battle sequences and I would have expected Cameron to want to push his even further... oh well, it can be a personal goal for JC now.

Quote from: RegularKarate on December 21, 2009, 01:08:57 PMthe action at the end of this was impressive for another director, but wasn't quite as good as I was hoping for.  Lord of The Rings really pushed battle sequences and I would have expected Cameron to want to push his even further... oh well, it can be a personal goal for JC now.

Funny you mention this. As the credits were rolling I turned to my buddy and said, "Man, imagine if Peter Jackson had created his LOTR trilogy in 2011 instead of 2001." I can't even begin to fathom how crazy some of those large scale battle sequences would have been in 3D. Can't wait for the Hobbit. There's a huge 3D opportunity there waiting to be cashed in on.

Quote from: Myxo on December 21, 2009, 01:20:07 PMThere's a huge 3D opportunity there waiting to be cashed in on.

'Jackass 3-D' is Happening
by William Goss, Cinematical

Back in 2007, our own Christopher Campbell (who's back on staff, baby!) told us that, back in 2006, a third Jackass film seemed like a sure thing in the wake of Jackass: Number Two. Steve-O told Howard Stern then that they'd begin shooting at the start of 2008...

Cut to 2009, and the Paramount slate for 2010 in our inbox happens to list a Jackass 3-D, with a release date to be determined. Johnny Knoxville and company don't seem too busy of late, and even with the eye-popping added dimension, this sounds like a relatively cheap production to give the go-ahead to. If Wikipedia is to be believed (I know), Bam Margera confirmed in a much more recent interview for a Finnish newspaper that filming would begin this January around the world.

Since there's really not all that much else to report on this yet, let me just assure you that my pals in the Twittersphere are a bit more psyched to have their gag reflexes back in working order than I might be:

"please be true, please be true, please be true" ... "Party boy's testicles bouncing off our foreheads." ... "there is a God in heaven, and he LOVES me!" ... "Ohpleaseohpleasepohpleaseohplease..." ... "This would make up for anything that goes wrong in the next 10 years."

Yep, there's still an audience.

Quote from: Myxo on December 21, 2009, 01:20:07 PM
Can't wait for the Hobbit. There's a huge 3D opportunity there waiting to be cashed in on.

Del Toro has already stated the movie won't be in 3D. Depending on what happens with Avatar's B.O., maybe that could change.

I've gotta ask, why did Cameron design the robots to carry guns? Surely it would have been more efficient that they would be built into the arms somehow? And where did all that water from the waterfalls on the floating mountains come from?

bet you a million dollars they pee on the audience at some point.

Quote from: RegularKarate on December 21, 2009, 01:08:57 PM
Complaints about this film are equally valid and invalid.  If character and story are the most important part of a film to you then why are you watching Avatar in the first place?  Of course it's frustrating that this kind of visual mastery is "wasted" on something with a crummy script.... but that's usually the way it goes so why not enjoy what it does have to offer?

I suppose you're right...but having said that I feel like in Aliens his writing was made somewhat more palettable by the confined nature of the setup. He was kind of forced to write actual conversations rather than a bunch of people walking around making explanatory statements or cornball exclamations. I actually loved Aliens when I rewatched it recently and it struck a really nice balance between the story and the spectacle - I'm not being facetious when I say that I was thrilled more by the showdown of that film than of any sequence in Avatar. This leads me to think I'm struggling to comprehend the sheer scope of Avatar but I don't think an increased appreciation of the visual mastery will allow me to forgive the script.

I did love the grunts awakening from deep-freeze and going to their lockers in zero-G and the subsequent descent to Pandora - so full of promise and Worthingtons dialogue sounded like the film would have some almost noirish internal musings but the voice-over soon became a way of re-iterating what we were seeing. But the contrast of Worthington working from a wheelchair to flying around in his Avatar was really quite compelling. It just worked so much better when it shut its mouth.

I can accept 1d characters in a 90 minute movie but not in one nearly twice that length.

I don't think I disagree with anything you just said, redlum.  I am just more forgiving in the case of Avatar than you are.

Near, Far, Where-AVATAR

Quote from: picolas on December 21, 2009, 01:35:33 PM
bet you a million dollars they pee on the audience at some point.

The robots???

I saw this last night in IMAX 3D and visually the film is remarkable.  This is the first film I've seen where I felt motion-capture made sense.  In purely animated films I generally think its a waste because animation should evoke real movement through exaggeration and artistry instead of mimicking reality.  But in Avatar, these creatures exist in the real world, so they have to have a recognizable movement, gravity, etc.  I mostly forgot that I was looking at CG creations during the scenes with the Na'vi.  The world of Pandora is gorgeous.  The 3D in the film enhances the visuals and is never gimmicky.

The humans in the film are not very interesting.  Sam Worthington is so blah in non-Avatar form.  Only Sigourney Weaver showed much spark.  Joel Moore was wasted.

Also, fuck that song that played over the end credits.

Overall, it was a blast, though I don't have any desire to watch this again.  Take out the IMAX 3Dness of it and I'm not especially interested.

Quote from: Ravi on December 21, 2009, 04:48:49 PM

Also, fuck that song that played over the end credits.

oh yes. and what about that fucking papyrus font for the subtitles and thoseawful green glowy letters before the end credits. crass. mind as well use comic sans.

Quote from: cronopio 2 on December 21, 2009, 06:38:36 PM

Quote from: Ravi on December 21, 2009, 04:48:49 PM

Also, fuck that song that played over the end credits.

oh yes. and what about that fucking papyrus font for the subtitles and thoseawful green glowy letters before the end credits. crass.

Spielberg's composer is better than Cameron's composer.

I didn't like the score for Avatar.

Quote from: Ravi on December 21, 2009, 04:48:49 PM
Also, fuck that song that played over the end credits.

...a 2006/2007 Pop Idol winner in the UK. Yes. I guess they were looking for My Heart Will Go on and On

Quote from: cronopio 2 on December 20, 2009, 08:25:36 PM
*takes deep breath*

i think people are being a bit cynical about the characters in avatar being '1D'. i'm not into this 'fad' about expecting multi-dimensional characters, all the time, in every contemporary story. i had the same impression about giovani ribisi's character being a caricature of corporate greed. i am okay with that. he plays golf in his office, who gives a shit. we know what he and that orange-tanned marine stand for.

but what i want to say is that, aside from the media mammoth it needed to be in order to work, this movie is an event.  yesterday, i went to a nativity play with my sister. we have a cousin who's a priest from the missionaries of the holy spirit. if you don't know who they are , they're this really laid back congregation. i'm not very religious but these guys drink and smoke and talk about god in a way that's not intimidating. so after the nativity play, there was a party and i was talking to an ex priest who's now teaching philosophy and theology, and he was saying that after he saw the movie he couldn't wait to go back and talk about it to his students, because of how dense the story and its universe are. to me, that's fucking cool. i like it when teachers talk about neo to explain shit from the aeneid. or when they bring up darth vader to explain the concept of a tragic hero. i think i prefer that level of enjoyment from movies to technical discussions about lighting or directing or 'a weak third act', and i know that makes me sound ignorant to some of you. i don't think i'll ever be able to talk about a movie in the same level of detail some of you do. but i  think it has to do with a difference of understanding what stories are and mean. stories bring sense to our lives.

i'll stop this for a bit.

i will never forget the day i went to see avatar. i'm not saying this movie is perfection, but man, look around you. a big part of the world has embraced mediocrity. twilight, the books and movies, are huge. think about the useless works of creativity that get produced every day. all the bad music. to me that is a genuinely depressing thought. we're very distracted. it's increasingly hard to find something that inspires you massively that doesn't happpen on your computer screen or your blackberry.  avatar is big and it is inspiring.  say that it's an overblown, opportunistic vehicle to cash in merchandise and wanting to be a pop phenomenon badly, but don't call it mediocre.   cameron is not a hack.
compared to the formalism of peter jackson , or the exhaustion of lucas' and spielberg's creativity, james cameron is the best fucking director working in that scale. he doesn't need to throw that bullshit about making movies 'for the fans' to sound convincing, he knows that his legacy has to do with quality and making a movie that's a generational frame or reference.   whenever i think about john connor wearing the public enemy  t-shirt in terminator 2, i feel that.  i don't care if it's a masterpiece or a let down or if it lived up to the hype or not. i like that this movie will be discussed for years to come, because it does push a lot of ideas forward, is challenging and inspiring.

the fact most ppl are ignoring what you said reveals a lot about the big problem with talking about movies.

no one is talking about the same thing. it's worse than a philosophical argument between materialists and dualists. not only do most ppl not talk about movies in any other way than "i liked it" and "i hated it", a lot of ppl talk about the individual departments of the film as if it means anything to break it down like that. don't make the mistake of thinking that ppl who talk about the editing, acting, cinematopgraphy individually and exclusively are saying anything of great value. the most interesting things to be said about a film are precisely the kind of thing that ex-priest mentioned.

most discussions never develop past the point of trying to agree that a movie is worth talking about. ppl like to pick on petty things, and there's very few films without any flaws, but even then: look at the discussions of kubrick, or the discussions about There Will Be Blood. the conversation generated by ppl who find superficial flaws (sometimes fundamental but still structural and formal) leaves no room for any discussion on what the movie actually might MEAN. but everyone believes it's beyond our understanding -- the first thing that anyone says is don't try to guess what the director meant, that is unknown so the discussion of what a film means is subjective and therefore fruitless at best. in the words of Christian Bale: NO! NNNNOO!. ,

look at socketlevel's response to my rant against Inglourious Basterds (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=1697.msg285143#msg285143). by bringing this kind of thing up ppl will not think you are ignorant, more like the opposite, ppl will most likely think you are being TOO INTELLECTUAL.,  that piece of shit WW2 film is no different from other tarantino wankfests in that while he wants to seem fun and like he has his finger on the pulse of what ppl want and nothing more, he has ALWAYS tried to be an "intellectual" filmmaker. he won the Palme D'Or for christ's sake! but because it's easy to just say "it was fun", without at all thinking why the hell it was fun (or wasn't AT ALL as the case may be), or what he meant by trying to make it fun (AND FAILING MISERABLY as the case may be), any attempt to bring the conversation to anything near that Aeneid shit falls flat.

the same is true for Avatar. these major directors who like to pride themselves on making cultural touchstones are extremely similar in more ways than their bluntness and appeal to popularity. ALL of them are underappreciated by the masses on the level that is truly significant, that is anything that lies beyond face value. alexandro is right in that james cameron could do better, but the truth is he just doesn't need to. his priority on paper is to make money just like tarantino's priority is for douche bags to say "FUCK YEAH! BLOOOOOD! HIS FACE IS POPPING ALL OVER THE PLACE LIKE POPCORN!" (*oh no, that observation was too interesting).

so maybe Avatar is not the best thread to bring this up, or it could be the best, cos at least it has a chance of being read (skimmed). some ideas are best presented by obvious intellectual experiments, and ideas need to be thought about so a film like Last Year at Marienbad signals loud and clear "some assembly required". the flaw in discussing those films is that once the puzzle is put together that is mistaken for the point of the film. but an art film is not about putting the plot together as if it were a standard narrative. a thing is not just and only just ABOUT something that is predigested. CMBB is not about Treasure of Sierra Madre. this film is not about Dances With Wolves.

it's about vision, pure and simple. it's consciously about the experience of watching 3D that everyone is describing the same way. it's about adjusting to a new way of seeing. it's about thinking of the possibilities BEYOND THE SURFACE. the villains are nothing but avatars themselves, their facade is expendable but their hatred is real. it is broad and simple because the story is huge and naive. we can return to Citizen Kane: the search for a life in a single word -- that is an experience (and it is just one experience) in a digestable form, where the aim is to answer the surface riddle and presumably leave it behind us neatly -- ignores the journey and the myriad ways to imagine seeing which the film seemingly exhausts.

big things are easy to overlook.

That robot had a gun

i can't believe you just compared those two things and in the process put words in my mouth. rather then address points i make, you chose to make a new point, on a new thread, and suggest that I'm the opposite side of the argument by loose connections at best. are you distorting my point in an attempt to justify intellectualism? sorry i never rejected intellectualism, or tried to silence it as you suggest. your rhetoric to insinuate i am a philistine is insulting. i am amazed with your shrewd tactics, which with the right lens just comes across loud and angry. sadly, in it's crafty assured strength, I'm sure you'll win some over.

My point was about over-analysis, or reaching for pretentious obscurity with symbolism as your toolbox, when it need not apply. my argument is that if you're walking into a fun movie looking for scholarly things, you just might not find them. you might be disappointed if you do. sure i could be wrong, but that's not what you're trying to do. you're not trying to argue that i'm wrong. you're just labeling.

quickly into inglorious basterds i realized i wasn't watching the thin red line. can you have both? sure, but you seemed to be too far on one side for the tone and style of that movie; like you were reviewing something else. i suggested you were using the wrong framework for your review/opinion with THAT film, not the vast world of cinema.  now ironically it could apply to Avatar as well, or any film for that matter, but your broad point to make me a mercenary for mediocrity while you're fighting the good fight in opposition is spiteful.

now please, brush off my reply and laugh. it's what i expect next. god forbid you see the point and retract your insults.

With regard to P's post,

I do agree that Cameron's vision with Avatar was to raise the bar and show other filmmakers "how it's done" with regard to 3D. To that end he succeeded beyond what I hoped for. There's no doubt that Avatar is an industry-changing film. I had tons of "wow" moments right up until the Marines decided to blow up their tree of life. That's when Cameron goes CNN on us and breaks out the "terror" and "shock and awe" dialogue from the Bush era bombing of Iraq. Leading up to that sequence I felt hypnotized by a 3D Pandoran world. Once Cameron chose to draw attention to his political bias I felt like somebody snapped their fingers and I suddenly realized like most people these days, he had an agenda. The movie was less and less enjoyable from that point forward.

This has been a tumultuous decade. You can barely watch TV in America or get on the internet anymore without reading something political. The United States is divided like never before. Films are supposed to offer an escape from reality, particularly with the Sci-Fi genre. I didn't mind the "moral of the story" message in Avatar. I was disappointed that Cameron purposely created dialogue to remind American audiences of his political bias. Interesting question: How many people will see this outside of America and totally miss those references?

Why not let the story tell the story? I can imagine the production meetings now. "If I mention terror or the media's shock and awe description from the Iraq war, people will see what I'm trying to do here!" Same deal with the "you should see your faces" dialogue from the flying mountains scene. We don't need to be force-fed what we should be feeling or thinking do we? Aren't we smart enough to discover allegory for ourselves without crappy dialogue as a distraction? I can forgive petty stuff like awkward romantic scenes or even a mediocre score. But I can't give Cameron a free pass with his dialogue decisions. He wrote the screenplay. Does that make this a bad movie? Absolutely not. But his writing does detract from the beauty he created. At least it did for me.

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on December 21, 2009, 11:54:36 AM
Titanic did have a love story that caught on with the public, but I don't believe any future films will be remiss to beat its box office just because they don't have the same love story that Titanic featured or one distinctly similar. Avatar does challenge audiences to find endearment in weird characters, but so did Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and any Speilberg science fiction story along with numerous other films.

But my ultimate point is that I didn't believe the film would stand much chance to exceed its budget, but a $220 million opening weekend worldwide is a good start to proving me wrong.

I also forgot to mention that it was about Titanic - one of the biggest, most famous, human follies of all time known world round. Not just a disaster movie, but one "based on" a real life object/event instead of a totally fiction based event.

Quote from: bigideas on December 22, 2009, 02:34:41 PM

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on December 21, 2009, 11:54:36 AM
Titanic did have a love story that caught on with the public, but I don't believe any future films will be remiss to beat its box office just because they don't have the same love story that Titanic featured or one distinctly similar. Avatar does challenge audiences to find endearment in weird characters, but so did Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and any Speilberg science fiction story along with numerous other films.

But my ultimate point is that I didn't believe the film would stand much chance to exceed its budget, but a $220 million opening weekend worldwide is a good start to proving me wrong.

I also forgot to mention that it was about Titanic - one of the biggest, most famous, human follies of all time known world round. Not just a disaster movie, but one "based on" a real life object/event instead of a totally fiction based event.

If anything, that helps my case. Historical event movies are notoriously inefficent at the box office because it seems people don't want precise history lessons over pure entertainment. With all the Saving Private Ryan movies that have succeeded, there are dozens of movies like Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line, and The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc which yield little interest financially.

That could also be the way it's told GT. two of those three examples you mention are relatively middle of the road in regard to film making by my tastes... then again so is saving private ryan.  i know you're speaking financially, however i still think if you make it well people will come out.

there's is no doubt that the advent of the red camera and downloading torrents the studios are afraid, which echoes the birth of the television.  I'm not saying in anyway Cameron is in on it, but a movie like avatar helps push the exclusivity factor of movie making. it's like how the big studios chose the most expensive way to make film over 100 years ago because they wanted to snub out the then small studio Warner Brothers.

After Avatar was done, my friend made a very astute point. he said, "This is only good when compared to normal films." he was talking about the 3D.  I think he's got it dead right.  If 3D became the norm, which it seems they're really trying to push, it would be futile. does anyone else feel more drained after going to a 3D picture? i don't think i could do it every time. it's so amazing because it's a treat, but a steady diet of it would make me sick.

I'd like to see Avatar in 2D and see how well it holds up.  because if it doesn't, on any level, sadly this is just propagates spectacle.

In regards to historical films, my examples are just three and I suppose better examples could be found that are more concurrent to appreciatable storytelling methods (as far as mainstream interest goes) but I still believe in my point that historical films do not sell as well because a person's expectations change when they are going into a historical film. The expectation isn't for Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, but something that will take them outside of the most enjoyable type of movies. Lately Gladiator and other movies have tried to dissuade historical accuracy from being relevant, but I still think the most populace story possible is one wholly within a genre or enjoyable convention.

I'll be seeing Avatar tomorrow in 2-D. I wanted to wait for 3-D but I'm stuck in my hometown for over a week longer and I am brimming with interest to see the movie. I still hope to see the 3-D later, but I'll see how 2-D holds up first. It's the only choice I have now.

I tend to agree with aspects of  P,  RK, as well as Myxo.

I don't feel like it's excusable to say, "james cameron could do better, but doesn't have to."  If it's assumed that the writing will be lackluster, as RK said, then wow, that's a film maker.  Someone who can draw hundreds of millions opening weekend, with people knowing that the writing is going to be shitty, and it's solely for visual appeal.  I at least had hoped for a great overall film.

I don't think it's excusable, for anyone, to let such a visually stunning film fall victim to bad writing.  It's just a shame

However, I actually enjoyed the message, and themes, the problem I had was the script. It's all been mentioned.

The music got pretty silly at times.  There was no subtlety to it.  At some points it was very pretty, in a celtic way which I enjoyed, but overall I feel that although I can say it was a bit much now, it personally didn't distract me from the film while i watched. 
.
Visually, it was a definite treat.  I saw it in 3-D and it was really impressive.  I should hope so for that kind of money. It truly is a game changer, but only in the sense that it was pretty fucking expensive, and legitimately no one has ever done anything like this.

Visually, and as an experiment this film is a success.  I can agree. I respect this as a spectacle.  I truly do, i'm glad i got to see this in the theaters 3-D.

all i'm saying is if james cameron doesn't have to write a decent script to match his beautiful vision, i'm not really on board with that.

Avatar holds the record by far for longest time spent with my mouth hanging open for a movie i didn't love.

*spoiler review*

i mean, there are many undeniably impressive things about this movie. the world, the ecosystem, above all the PERFORMANCE CAPTURE, which made me forget i was watching cg characters very quickly. the Na'vi work brilliantly. i was entranced by them. Zoe gave the best performance by far. Sam was pretty good too. i really wanted to love the movie for the world it created. i find it very unfortunate that despite all the wonder of that world and a few wonderful conceptual moments ('i see you', which reminded me a lot of City Lights and was quite lovely even though i saw it coming a million miles away, Sully's first moments in his new body, learning to be Na'vi, etc), i was never emotionally invested in it. because of the flimsiness of the story and characters.

before i talk about specific issues i want to say for the record that i love Cameron, and the only movie he's made before this that fell flat for me was The Abyss. seeing him talk about this movie you know he means well, but the early concerns he had about not focusing very much on story/character were well founded.

Michelle Rodriguez is a great example of how this movie disregards motivation and just.. makes characters do things because they have to. we know so little about her. suddenly she disowns the military and doesn't fire on the giant tree. NO ONE notices or reprimands her for it, and she's able to break Sully and the crew out of prison. wouldn't it have made more sense and been more interesting for her to be in prison with them and break them out from the inside using her knowledge of the security or something? or the bearded guy from Drag Me To Hell we barely got to know could've helped break them out. then he would've been more than just a techie who barely does anything.

the romance between Jake and Neytiri just feels like a default/predestined one to me. i understand why they're together, but it's not an interesting relationship. it just has to exist. and i know Cameron is capable of bringing characters together in far more compelling/well-realized ways (Jack/Rose, Sarah Connor/Kyle Reese, Ripley/Hicks). when Jake flies in with the really big dragon, Neytiri immediately forgets her anger towards him. it's a very sudden, easy emotional shift that rang false to me. i also couldn't get my head around why the Na'vi never figured out how to convert the really big dragons themselves. after however many years of being Na'vi, living on Pandora, how could no one ever try that? it was also bizarre to me how the animals never attacked the military until the end. wouldn't they be naturally defensive when confronted with such violence? they were naturally predatory around Jake when he first landed. there are a lot of inconsistencies on Pandora, like p has pointed out with their treatment of Sigourney (who STUNK in this role. completely unconvincing. and typically i really like her too.) and wasn't it a big deal for Neytiri to be engaged or whatever to the other Na'vi guy? this was only ever alluded to by the techie and never really brought up on Pandora. why have that idea in the movie at all if it's just hanging there doing nothing?

i thought the direct references to "fighting terror with terror" and "shock and awe" were clumsily on-the-nose and will damage the movie's lasting impact because they're so specific.. have these characters from the future never heard of the bush administration?

the ending is pretty harsh on humanity. the idea that Jake is leaving mankind behind forever and that's somehow transcendent and wonderful is kind of disturbing as a message. just give up on everyone? i think District 9 handled the idea of what it means to feel alienated from your entire species far more powerfully.

3D is still a gimmick, and it actually distracted me far more than making the action on screen resonate in a new way.. i felt like i was really watching a bunch of 2D figures on screen moving between the middle, fore, and background. i was not immersed by it. i wanted to watch it in 2D.

i really want this to be another great movie by James Cameron as so many other people find it to be. but it isn't. and that's such a shame because it's so beautiful otherwise.

excellent points picolbug.

i agree with all the flaws you pointed out. i chose to limit my complaints cos i had an overall positive reaction so i'd like to expand on some of yours and add some good things now everyone's seen it:

sucked
-sigourney's character not only was underdeveloped, she was very unattractive, even for a blue thing.
-where were the kids? no blue thing kids anywhere except for a few that touched sig's hair when they met her. that's why i think some scenes were cut.
-totally idiotic that no one had thought of jumping on the dragons before. and considering how hard it was to land the mini dragons the fact it just went to black when he got on the big ones is just a cop out. that never happened, as stefen would say.
-fact is that no alien life should look like us in any way, these aliens must somehow be related to us somewhere in the past cos they resemble us so much.

that brings me to this:
i HATED that the blue things immediately called him "zheyk SOO-lee". i don't mind the inexplicable french twist on the hard J in Jake but what i can't get over is how they changed the SUH in SULLY to SOO (like the girl name "Sue"). there is no justification for this instant change except that in america when you encounter a foreign speaker they probably speak spanish, and if you speak spanish then you get the weird thing happening that sometimes vowels are pronounced phonetically AS IF THEY ARE BEING READ OUT LOUD. so for example the word "loud" instead of having the english diphthong "ow" in the middle, would, to a really dumb spanish person who can at least imagine how the word is spelled in their own alphabet (which is the same as english cos of the common linguistic ancestor Latin), end up being spoken as LOH-OOD. cos the vowel U has the sound of "ooh" in spanish, so you might now understand the confusion.

NO such confusion could possibly occur in pandora. they have their own language, and as far as i can tell no written form, so if they were going to mispronounce things in any way it should only be as an exaggeration of the sounds they are already hearing. so the name "Jake Sully" would probably become "jik-SUH-lee", which would make sense since they only seem to have one name and upon hearing this riduculous english name would try to appropriate it to their own standards of acceptable nomenclature.

The ONLY reason i can think of why James Cameron would have insisted they mispronounce it so blatantly, and it was definitely not a mistake because they payed a goddamn linguist to invent the language from scratch (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/11/usc-professor-creates-alien-language-for-avatar.html), is that like pretty much everything else in the film, it was meant to be a thinly veiled reference to something really obvious. my best guess, and i 100% confident this was intentional, is that Cameron was making a reference to Shaka Zulu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka). for those who don't know, please read the article. the significance is quite clear, the name sounds the same and he brought together the tribes of the Zulu nation against the white invaders.

this is a pretty cool reference, but an infuriating way to make it. and that's pretty much my attitude to the film the more i think of it. it's just too much effort to try to make anyone see beyond the flaws. and i think the truth is most ppl just don't want to. so who cares, here's more things..

not actually a flaw cos i figured it out after the film
the dude never sleeps! it's still hard to believe that no one ever bothered to wake him up before sunrise or whenever these blue things get up. they spend their day hunting, it seems, and getting high on brain trees, so maybe they are so fucking tired they just never bother waking anybody else up. but the explanation i figure is that we can't assume that Pandora has exactly the same number of hours in a day that Earth does. so a pandoran day can be 35 earth hours which gives Jake enough time to sleep and then sleep again.

goodish reference no one has mentioned:
FMJ to the extreme with the guy who just couldn't say anything except "GET SOME GET SOME" as he shot at the blue things.


excellent reference everyone noticed but no one has mentioned:
the use of the robot suit has been mentioned but only cos it's ridiculous that it had a gun. but what about the fact Jim stole that directly from ALIENS where it is the one thing that saves us from the just-as-bad-as-the-humans-here incredibly unbelievably evil alien? it's a great role reversal and it sort of makes sense in a really perverted way that technology has become the enemy because military advances are still the main drive behind it. it's perverted too in the way picolbug describes, that the film promotes such a severe reversal of allegiance. this reminds me of a quick aside: my favourite fight and death was the other main blue thing that was Jake's rival but then became his compadre. i loved his hand to hand, more like hand to torso combat against humans.. all i could think was "we are the earth intruders, marching with twigs and branches".. i love that humans are so tiny!


excellent reference i don't think anyone has noticed and might not even be a reference:
when michelle rodriguez fights against the mothership, before she gets shot down, she evades enemy fire by going behind the floating mountains. are you kidding me?

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Filearn.amorphous.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F11%2Fspaceinvaders1.jpg&hash=07b50455a3fa6adade41d1447324001ed30f28e8)

Quote from: picolas on December 23, 2009, 02:35:04 AM
Avatar holds the record by far for longest time spent with my mouth hanging open for a movie i didn't love.

Exactly.  The way I have been describing it to people is: I saw the film the day after it opened in IMAX 3D with a sold-out crowd but during the film no one made a sound.  No one laughed during the funny parts, clapped or cheered during the cool parts, as best as I can figure just sat there mouth agape for 2 1/2 hours admiring the scenery without being pulled completely into the story.

I'm waiting for it to come out on VHS.

P, nice.  I Pico, you pretty much nailed it, except the 3-D was fine for me.  I'm sure the film will be beautiful in 2-D blu-ray as well, but, from where i was sitting with 3-D hipster shades, it was fucking legit.  nothing was lost for sure, at least not for me

Minor Spoils

I want to approach the giant red dragon issue.  I believe it's about circumstance, and the film is about being forced into destiny, kind of.  I thought the same thing, really, when i left the theater, i was thinking 'this was how to start a revolution, and no one thought of this?'

But, the reason no one had ever tried that, since the last revolution, is because there would be no need.  They were flourishing as a populace, until we came along, or at least I can assume this due to the inter-connectivity of their whole ecosystem, and the fact that we're to understand that the ancestry that has long gone, was a part of providing this peace. 

This may not be a justification, or even a good answer, but it was clear to me, that after they mentioned the last few revolutionaries (when Jake is being told about the big bird skeleton, that was killed by his loves grandpa) that the whole situation regarding the dragon, and such is about being pushed so far, that you attempt to tame the most powerful beast on Pandora.  Plus, the Na'vi clearly believed that you could have only one mini dragon for life, so obviously there was no attempt or thought that this type of thing could happen.



Also, as far as jake leaving this world for theirs.  I don't think it's a stretch, i'll be shallow here and say he got legs, and fell in love.  What's not to stick around about?plus his brother just died.  I don't know, i don't think this is about turning your back on the human species, he's probably lucky to get to stay on Pandora, because remember, "there is no green left on our planet anymore,"  who knows. just wanted to throw that out there.


I don't know.

Quote from: Neil on December 23, 2009, 11:56:27 AMAlso, as far as jake leaving this world for theirs.  I don't think it's a stretch, i'll be shallow here and say he got legs, and fell in love.  What's not to stick around about?plus his brother just died.  I don't know, i don't think this is about turning your back on the human species, he's probably lucky to get to stay on Pandora, because remember, "there is no green left on our planet anymore,"  who knows. just wanted to throw that out there.


I don't know.

Why wouldn't Jake stay on Pandora? Sequel money baby.

p, i want to look beyond the flaws. i actually feel more positive about it with a couple days distance, forgetting many of the human parts. it could've been cool if it was completely from the Na'vi perspective. a total reverse alien invasion story. wait a minute... that's Planet 51. i did notice the total role reversal from aliens, actually. i was thinking it's also kind of a reverse-T2 reference because the good robot has now become the bad one. i thought they sort of dealt with the lack of sleep during that one scene where Jake notices how thin his legs have gotten and he's lacking strength somehow. Neil, that's not a bad explanation actually. but the cut to black is definitely a case of James Cameron sitting at his keyboard being like "awwww dammit.. i don't want to describe this in great detail then choreograph it then direct it then supervise the cg and sound design and editing of it for another month... cut to black."

Has there been any word if the blu ray will be in 3D as well? I kept my glasses from the theater, don't know if they will work on the tv though. Maybe I should rent Coraline or something and give it a whirl.

The Coraline blu-ray uses the old-school red-and-blue glasses style 3D. It's almost unwatchable.

Reading stories like this pretty much sums up why this movie is a B+ for me.

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/hmg-avatar-hidden-messages.html

QuoteEd Morrissey writes, "Conservatives have more or less primed themselves to hate this film because of the presumed anti-war politics of the movie. It's there -- in fact, it's unmistakable -- but it's not as bad as one might presume." He goes on to note that "Avatar" is "entertaining" though "hardly a deep intellectual exercise."

Ugh.

hidden messages? jesus.
there's nothing hidden in avatar. "allegory" implies a subtlety that the film doesn't even try to achieve.

Quote from: ρ on December 23, 2009, 04:34:24 AM
excellent reference i don't think anyone has noticed and might not even be a reference:
when michelle rodriguez fights against the mothership, before she gets shot down, she evades enemy fire by going behind the floating mountains. are you kidding me?

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Filearn.amorphous.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F11%2Fspaceinvaders1.jpg&hash=07b50455a3fa6adade41d1447324001ed30f28e8)

that is too awesome.

some classic posts up in this thread.

Quote from: picolas on December 23, 2009, 01:59:26 PM
p, i want to look beyond the flaws. i actually feel more positive about it with a couple days distance, forgetting many of the human parts. it could've been cool if it was completely from the Na'vi perspective. a total reverse alien invasion story. wait a minute... that's Planet 51. i did notice the total role reversal from aliens, actually. i was thinking it's also kind of a reverse-T2 reference because the good robot has now become the bad one. i thought they sort of dealt with the lack of sleep during that one scene where Jake notices how thin his legs have gotten and he's lacking strength somehow. Neil, that's not a bad explanation actually. but the cut to black is definitely a case of James Cameron sitting at his keyboard being like "awwww dammit.. i don't want to describe this in great detail then choreograph it then direct it then supervise the cg and sound design and editing of it for another month... cut to black."

thx to pre-warnings of bad dialogue, cardboard cutout characters and poorly written scenes i was able to let that stuff take a backseat and let their mouth flapping directions pretty much go ignored. i didnt even mind the big dragon copout so much cos it couldve just been repetitive action of the mini-dragon stuff. and a montage edit of a battle mighta been worse than going to black. Michelle Rod rescue was ghastly done though. whatever. all that stuff needed to be ironed out to a sky-high extreme for this thing to head toward revolutionary status but i was able to enjoy the movie for what it is. it is a movie that's nearly impossible not to fall for visually and because you do so early on you just roll with it's amusement. the better and the worse of it.

A wonderfully explosive spectacle from the man who does it better than everyone else. I also could forgive the horribly written scenes, the exposition ridden dialogue and the sub-par love story because the images were just out of this world. It had a lot of ideas floating around concerning colonization, betrayal, and un-needed suffering of an entire species and some of it was inspired. Some of it fell on the floor but overall this was the best one this year and I loved it wholeheartedly.

He's done it, he's ACTUALLY done it (again!) :shock:

'Avatar' tops $1 billion at worldwide box office (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118013236.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)

there will be no stopping him now

lol@doubting Jim Cameron.

What was I thinking?

He channels his autism so much better than George Lucas does.

I'm a box office guru dumbass, but is it possible that Jim Cameron could eventually have the top two highest grossing movies of all time?

So I once dated this girl.  She was fun to be around, she did all sorts of exciting things, and, most of all, she was ridiculously good looking.  She was kind of predictable, but just so easy to look at that you were able to ignore it most of the time.  But after spending a little while longer with her, I started noticing all these little problems: she was long-winded to say the least, she had these embarrassingly simplistic conceptions of politics and spirituality that she was convinced were the height of profundity, and when you heard her talk for long enough it became clear that she was kind of racist and didn't even realize it.  Not maliciously so, just in a patronizing, doesn't-know-any-better sort of way.  But seriously, and I can't stress this enough, she looked fantastic.  Except later on, looking back, I realize that she wasn't actually this great unique beauty that she seemed to be at the time.  In truth, she was kind of generic looking, even a little bland, but she was so good with cosmetics that you didn't even notice.  I don't know, I had a fun time with her, but I can't imagine I'll go out of my way to spend time with her in the future.  Honestly, I'll most likely forget about her entirely in a few months.

I don't know why I just thought about all that. 

Oh, I almost forgot to mention, I finally saw Avatar this weekend.  It was pretty good, I guess.

Yeah, exactly.  This movie is a landmark, but it's not a classic.

Just saw it on imax 3d, the only way to see it.

and I loved this, and glad i still can see movie and get lost in it without its faults affecting my viewing (sure there are exceptions), and this is a prime example of that, it may have some cringe worthy scenes but man was the action awesome and the 3D jaw dropping.

The only thing that bothered me deeply was the mich-rod rescue scene, beats me why Cameron did it that way, it felt too lazy.

As for the box office, im glad it's making big bucks, I never expected this to tank but so far it has the lowest % change from the previous week I remember, 2nd weekend -1.8% and 3rd -9.7%.

Quote from: Fernando on January 04, 2010, 10:51:39 AM


As for the box office, im glad it's making big bucks, I never expected this to tank but so far it has the lowest % change from the previous week I remember, 2nd weekend -1.8% and 3rd -9.7%.

despite my reservations with the film itself, I'm also really glad is making so much money. risky endeavors like this should always be rewarded. i don't know about oscars though, but making billions is more than fair.

Quote from: Pas Rap on December 09, 2009, 12:15:18 PM
I think it's gonna have a 70M+ weekend ... probably gonna finish with 150M maybe?

lol I'm crazy in 17 days it already tops 1 billion dollars haha this will be the highest grossing film of all time (with the 17$ tickets helping for sure). It's gonna get hard to inflation-adjust movies since the value of going to see a movie in the theater is not fixed anymore (3D vs non-3D). If they want an absolute dollar sign they're gonna have to push stuff like Avatar downwards with it's overpriced tickets.

The two ways to adjust don't really work anymore:

1: If a movie in 1960 cost 1$ to see and one today 12, then X12 (which doesn't really work anymore because of the 12$ and 20$ movies opening week prices)
2: Normal total data inflation adjustment also doesn't really work anymore because the price of movie tickets has gone up higher than the total inflation. (1$1960 is less than 20$2009 in absolute money)

And because of the last statement, total individual sales don't really compare as much as they used to (a kid could see whatever movies 10 times in the theater back then for a relatively expensive amount of money, today this is much too expensive for anyone but the richest today.)

Quote from: Fernando on January 04, 2010, 10:51:39 AM
imax 3d, the only way to see it.

I disagree, actually.

I saw it at the IMax the first time around and was pretty amazed, but come holiday time, my parents wanted to see it and I had to go again.  No Imax this time so we saw it projected on a 4K digital screen.
BETTER!

The iMax was film and the 3D just didn't look as good.  The picture wasn't clean enough and it was cropped.

Sure, it's good... it's big...it's impressive... but I really think the digital projection is the best way to go.

My friends and I were dying during this. We caught the red eye showing and brought our flasks. It was good fun. The metheadedness of some of the military dudes was fucking hilarious. "come get some!" haha.

Saw it Saturday, 3D but not IMAX. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Okay, so it's no masterpiece, but for popcorn fair it definitely gets 2 thumbs up. Obviously looks spectacular. Favorite line: "If someone has something we want, we make them our enemies so we can justify taking it from them." Main gripes: blunt and obvious transitions into action set-pieces (tra la la, flying is fun, and whatthefuck something's attacking us) - seriously, that scenario happened at least twice. First half was best half. Second half descended into overlong battles which, seriously, just went on forever. Yeah it's got it's failings, but for what it was, I enjoyed it. I can see my kid getting into this in a few year's time, the same way I enjoyed Indy as a kid.

Quote from: Pas Rap on January 04, 2010, 01:36:26 PM
lol I'm crazy in 17 days it already tops 1 billion dollars haha this will be the highest grossing film of all time (with the 17$ tickets helping for sure). It's gonna get hard to inflation-adjust movies since the value of going to see a movie in the theater is not fixed anymore (3D vs non-3D). If they want an absolute dollar sign they're gonna have to push stuff like Avatar downwards with it's overpriced tickets.

The two ways to adjust don't really work anymore:

1: If a movie in 1960 cost 1$ to see and one today 12, then X12 (which doesn't really work anymore because of the 12$ and 20$ movies opening week prices)
2: Normal total data inflation adjustment also doesn't really work anymore because the price of movie tickets has gone up higher than the total inflation. (1$1960 is less than 20$2009 in absolute money)

And because of the last statement, total individual sales don't really compare as much as they used to (a kid could see whatever movies 10 times in the theater back then for a relatively expensive amount of money, today this is much too expensive for anyone but the richest today.)

that's true. the way of measuring the success of a film is extremely warped, especially since all they care about these days is opening weekend.

that's why i suggested in another thread, (maybe this one actually) that a better way to talk about a movie's success is the european model of counting the number of tickets sold. this is easier to adjust as a percentage of the population. things like second viewings might be hard to account for but the final number gives you a way better picture of how widespread a film's popularity is.

that method is ultimately irrelevant to anyone but cultural historians or something, cos the only thing that truly matters to ppl in the present is how much money is going in their pockets. and really that's the biggest landmark of Avatar, that 75% of ticket sales have been to 3D showings.. should a movie cost that much to see? i don't think so, but despite everyone feeling this way the world has spoken - we are chumps.

Quote from: ρ on January 04, 2010, 09:34:48 PM
should a movie cost that much to see? i don't think so, but despite everyone feeling this way the world has spoken - we are chumps.

haha yes it's strange that all around people are complaining that going to the movies is too expensive : well apparently not since you're going anyway.

The cost of entertainment is something to wonder about... especially disposable entertainement (I mean that don't leave you with an object in hand). Just going to see some sports game in bar will cost you easily 50$+ per person if you drink the slightest bit and eat. Staying home with the same friends, same beer, same food will probably be about 10$. Just like going to the movies can be about 30$ per persone with food and at home same movie same food you can get for 5$ a couple months later.

Years ago people could talk about ''big screens'' but hell we're all on 6.1 digital surround with 40+inch plasma TVs...

The human is a social creature I guess is the only explanation.

but the big screen you mentioned did create a sizable dent on the theaters.  I mean they do not completely eliminate the cinemas but you can see studios working pretty hard to release high quality DVDs.

This is the exact type of movie I loved when I was a kid. It's the type of movie I'd watch, then come out of the theater bouncing and running around going, " DAD, DAD! REMEMBER THAT PART WHEN......." and, " AND THEN......" and, "OH, AND THEN REMEMBER THAT PART WHEN....." and "OH MY GOD BUT THE MOST AWESOMEST PART WAS WHEN, DAD, DAD, ARE YOU LISTENING!...." and "BUT MY REAL FAVORITE PART WAS..." before finally pissing my pants in the parking lot of the movie theater.

Avatar DVD/Blu-ray to include blue alien sex scene
Source: SciFi Wire

If you've seen James Cameron's sci-fi epic Avatar, you may feel that a certain scene lacked a certain, um, something. (Spoilers ahead!)

We're talking about the scene in which Jake (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) do the horizontal mambo in the jungle of Pandora. Actually, all we see is them snogging and cuddling; there's no actual alien sex.

Well, fire up that Blu-ray player, because Cameron recently told reporters that he shot a much more explicit scene that was cut out to achieve the PG-13 rating, according to Reelz:

We had it in and we cut it out. So that will be something for the special edition DVD, if you want to see how they have sex.
If you surmise that Na'vi sex involves intertwining ponytail tendrils, you may be right, Saldana says:

If you sync to your banshee and you're syncing to a tree, why not sync into a person? I almost feel like you'll have the most amazing orgasm, I guess. It was a very funny scene to shoot because there were so many technical things that sometimes you have to keep in mind that paying attention to all those might disrupt the fluidity of how a scene is supposed to take place.

Quote from: Pas Rap on January 05, 2010, 07:27:55 AM
Just going to see some sports game in bar will cost you easily 50$+ per person if you drink the slightest bit and eat. Staying home with the same friends, same beer, same food will probably be about 10$. Just like going to the movies can be about 30$ per persone with food and at home same movie same food you can get for 5$ a couple months later.

Years ago people could talk about ''big screens'' but hell we're all on 6.1 digital surround with 40+inch plasma TVs...

The human is a social creature I guess is the only explanation.

Movies are a very peculiar animal in terms of being social.  In most cases, you're looking to spend $30 per person as you say, which is a fair assessment, or maybe more like just over $20.  (At my theater ticket costs $11, and if you go medium drink and popcorn which is fairly average, medium drink is $4.25 and medium popcorn is $5.50).

Having spent that much, you sit in the dark and watch the movie.  If you're attending a film alone, which is very common, it's not likely that you'll interact with anyone else in the theater.  If you go with friends, a lot of the time, there will be a quick "I liked it" or "Ugh!" and then they shuffle out.  Unless there's a "movie buff" amongst them who will have a stronger opinion.  Of course, there are still smaller groups of people who will discuss it, as this message board is proof.  But yet, there is little guaranteed social interaction from watching a movie.

I guess this is going off-topic but anyway... you made me realize this.

I think I would argue that going to the theater alone is more social than going with friends somehow. When you're with friends, you won't notice anyone and just talk to your friends while waiting for the film to begin and really just watch it with your friends. Alone, it's more like you're watching the film with the whole theater. You watch everyone coming in. You make up little lives for them and guess their tastes (at least that's what I do). You listen to other people talking and argue with them in your head. You can even get mad at them, or laugh their jokes in your head. You can envy this guy for having this girls, or pity this girl for having that guy. Things you will never do with friends, because you're having fun with them.

I guess sometimes loneliness is a bit underrated... I haven't been alone for more than a day in years and I can miss it once in a while.

awwwww

Quote from: Pas Rap on January 07, 2010, 12:16:30 PM
I guess this is going off-topic but anyway... you made me realize this.

I think I would argue that going to the theater alone is more social than going with friends somehow. When you're with friends, you won't notice anyone and just talk to your friends while waiting for the film to begin and really just watch it with your friends. Alone, it's more like you're watching the film with the whole theater. You watch everyone coming in. You make up little lives for them and guess their tastes (at least that's what I do). You listen to other people talking and argue with them in your head. You can even get mad at them, or laugh their jokes in your head. You can envy this guy for having this girls, or pity this girl for having that guy. Things you will never do with friends, because you're having fun with them.

I guess sometimes loneliness is a bit underrated... I haven't been alone for more than a day in years and I can miss it once in a while.

Quote from: Pozer on January 02, 2010, 02:10:41 PM
some classic posts up in this thread.

Pas, you should break up with her!

but then who's gonna give me blowjobs? WHO?

edit : wow that poor post just might've killed this thread  :shock:

Fox Posts Full Avatar Screenplay Online
Source: 20th Century Fox

While James Cameron's Avatar has climbed to the 10th spot on the all-time domestic list with $380.5 million (surpassing Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith's $380.3 million and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's $377 million - worldwide it's reached $1.16 billion), 20th Century Fox has posted a PDF online of the full screenplay for awards reasons. You can read or download the script using the link below! You'll be able to see what did and what didn't make it into the final cut...


http://www.foxscreenings.com/media/pdf/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf

Avatar too real?

(CNN) -- James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html) after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora.

So is people living such sheltered and distanced lives from reality that is a film of all things what makes them suicidal?

yeah, that's ridiculous.


in other news. holy shit! right now this is the 2nd highest grossing film worldwide...

titanic   1,842.9m
avatar   1,331.1m
lotr.rotk 1,119.1m

The Vatican criticizes 'Avatar'
Criticism directed at its theme of man vs. nature
Associated Press

VATICAN CITY -- "Avatar" is wooing audiences worldwide with visually dazzling landscapes and nature-loving blue creatures. But the Vatican is no easy crowd to please.

The Vatican newspaper and radio station are criticizing James Cameron's 3D blockbuster for flirting with the idea that worship of nature can replace religion -- a notion the pope has warned against. They call the movie a simplistic and sappy tale, despite its awe-inspiring special effects.

"Not much behind the images" was how the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, summed it up in a headline.

As the second highest-grossing movie ever, "Avatar" is challenging the record set by Cameron's previous movie "Titanic."

Generally it has been critically acclaimed and is touted as a leading Oscar contender.

Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, has praised "Avatar" for what he calls its message of saving the environment from exploitation. But the movie also has drawn a number of critical voices. Some American conservative bloggers have decried its anti-militaristic message; a small group of people have said the movie contains racist themes.

To Vatican critics, the alien extravaganza is just "bland."

Cameron "tells the story without going deep into it, and ends up falling into sappiness," said L'Osservatore Romano. Vatican Radio called it "rather harmless" but said it was no heir to sci-fi masterpieces of the past.

Most significantly, much of the Vatican criticism was directed at the movie's central theme of man vs. nature.

L'Osservatore said the film "gets bogged down by a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature." Similarly, Vatican Radio said it "cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium."

"Nature is no longer a creation to defend, but a divinity to worship," the radio said.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said that while the movie reviews are just that -- film criticism, not theological pronouncements -- they do reflect Pope Benedict XVI's views on the dangers of turning nature into a "new divinity."

Benedict has often spoken about the need to protect the environment, earning the nickname of "green pope." But he also has balanced that call with a warning against turning environmentalism into neo-paganism.

In a recent World Day of Peace message, the pontiff warned against any notions that equate human beings with other living things in the name of a "supposedly egalitarian vision." He said such notions "open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms."

The pope explained in the message that while many experience tranquility and peace when coming into contact with nature, a correct relationship between man and the environment should not lead to "absolutizing nature" or "considering it more important than the human person."

The Vatican newspaper occasionally likes to comment in its cultural pages on movies or pop culture icons, as it did recently about "The Simpsons" or U2. In one famous instance, several Vatican officials spoke out against "The Da Vinci Code."

In this case, the reviews came out after a red-carpet "Avatar" preview held in Rome just a stone's throw from St. Peter's Square. The movie -- which has made more than $1.3 billion at boxoffices worldwide, partly boosted by higher 3D ticket prices -- will be released Friday in Italy.

"So much stupefying, enchanting technology, but few genuine emotions," said L'Osservatore in one of three articles devoted to "Avatar" in its Sunday editions. The plotline of aliens who live on a distant unspoiled planet and the humans who want to pillage their resources is a universal theme that can be reminiscent of past colonizations and wars, the paper said. As such, it is easy to relate to it, but also unoriginal.

"Everything is reduced to an overly simple anti-imperialistic and anti-militaristic parable," it said.

In America, the big numbers and media hype have been accompanied by some controversy.

Blog posts, newspaper articles, tweets and YouTube videos have criticized the film, with some calling it "a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people" and that it reinforces "the white Messiah fable." Cameron says the real theme is about respecting others' differences.

An LA Times blog noted that the movie "has inflamed the passions of right-wing bloggers and pundits."

"Cameron incensed many voices on the right by acknowledging of-the-moment messages about imperialism, greed, ecological disregard and corporate irresponsibility," it said. Anti-smoking lobbies have denounced the cigarette-puffing character played by Sigourney Weaver.

Back at the Vatican, the reviews did praise the groundbreaking visuals of the movie.

Vatican Radio said that "really never before have such surprising images been seen," while L'Osservatore said the movie's worth lies in its "extraordinary visual impact."

wow. never thought the vatican would make more sense than the majority of the film critics in the world.

Some dude shot a chick during this movie this weekend. Happened right down the street from me.

Quote from: Alexandro on January 12, 2010, 05:36:57 PM
wow. never thought the vatican would make more sense than the majority of the film critics in the world.

are you kidding me? the vatican can go fuck itself. who goes to the vatican for advice on entertainment? or anything else for that matter?

i'll be sure to tune in to the vatican radio station next week to see what they think of the new google phone. by golly they sure know their modern shit!

Quote from: ρ on January 12, 2010, 09:40:55 PM

Quote from: Alexandro on January 12, 2010, 05:36:57 PM
wow. never thought the vatican would make more sense than the majority of the film critics in the world.

are you kidding me? the vatican can go fuck itself. who goes to the vatican for advice on entertainment? or anything else for that matter?

i'll be sure to tune in to the vatican radio station next week to see what they think of the new google phone. by golly they sure know their modern shit!

they know a lot. besides their obligatory idiotic point on religious beliefs everything else mentioned in that article has more truth than the bullshit critics have been preaching as excuses for the emptiness of avatar.
look:
"not much behind the images" (meaning it looks awesome but the story sucks), check.
"bland" (meaning it's supposed to be about standing up against the man but feels like an average hollywood bullshit movie in the end), check.
"So much stupefying, enchanting technology but few genuine emotions" (meaning you can see every single fuckin thing that's going to happen a mile away...as a friend pointed out to me 'it's as if the movie is trying to see how many cliches it can squeeze into two and a half hours, as when the moment you see the blue chick, you just know is the tribe chief's daugther'), check.
"Everything is reduced to an overly simple anti-imperialistic and anti-imperialistic parable" (as opposed to the embarrassing editorials that have been popping up about the "hidden" political agenda of the film), check.
"tells the story without going deep into it, ends up falling into sappiness", (do I have to explain this one?), check.

they paraphrase: "no heir to sci-fi masterpieces of the past", and we all know they are certainly talking about 2001, which is the kind of film you would expect from a smart guy who can do whatever he wants like james cameron, and which is certainly much much modern shit than avatar will ever hope to be. you can say whatever you want, but those small criticisms are right on the money. the fact that some people are choosing to go with that flow doesn't mean they are false, and it is weird that the fucking vatican says it instead of the so called professional critics coming all over their panties because the film looks amazing.

one thing's for sure: the people who don't like this film are much more passionate about the fact that they didn't like the film than the ones who liked the film are passionate about the fact that they enjoyed the film. i have friends who find it necessary to talk shit about this movie. they use their facebook status to express vitriol. i'm not against that. it's just proof  that nothing will ever please everyone. i've had conflicts with what has been said about being comformist if you didn't mind the problems with the movie. i don't consider myself a comformist, but who would? i'm not with the 'can't you just enjoy it?!' team either. i agree with what stefen said about it being the kind of movie you'd be obsessed when you were young. the end.


ps. i find it funny that people feel so observant when they compare the story to pocahontas. you have the right to kick a person's  face if they say the words 'pocahontas in space' with the pride of authorship. that's just another example of how unimaginative and stupid we've become to have original thoughts and reflections. i liked your post, polka.

my personal experience was that i went to the fucking midnight premiere, spent a whole lot of dough I don't really have, even bought overpriced popcorn and coke and saw it with my mouth wide open for about an hour. then I mostly really enjoyed it. But after it was over there was no denying that for all it's visual flair, it was just too mechanical for me to enjoy it. I honestly wasn't thinking on Pocahontas or Dances with Wolves while watching it...I was thinking more about stuff like Independence Day, another event film with a big WOW effect in it's time that no one can watch today without cringing for it's absurd predictability. Personally, the weeks after that day, with critics and audiences talking about this film as some sort of milestone have been baffling to me. Maybe that's why you Cronopio, feel that "passion" from people like me. Another film Avatar reminded me of is Titanic, because I went to see it, almost shit in my pants with the whole thing, though by the end I felt it was a little bland. A year later I try to see it on dvd and I'm unable to finish it. Haven't seen it complete since. It is just too fucking predictable and (you will know what I mean cause you are mexican) too much like watching an ultra big budget mexican soap opera cinderella rehash AGAIN.

Quote from: Fernando on January 11, 2010, 01:11:40 PM
yeah, that's ridiculous.


in other news. holy shit! right now this is the 2nd highest grossing film worldwide...

titanic   1,842.9m
avatar   1,331.1m
lotr.rotk 1,119.1m

i wonder if Cameron's publicists are doing the old school thing by buying millions of tickets/buying out theaters themselves in order to make people think "so many other people are going, I think I will now." there's no need now, but the first week or so.

does anyone still do that? (or I guess they wouldn't say if they did). maybe nobody ever does it and it's all my imagination. or is it the music industry? fart.

maybe they do a little bit of that on the first weekend on certain movies but this one took off on it's own pretty much instantly.

James Cameron seeded Avatar with sequel hints
Source: MTV

We reported waaay back in December that James Cameron always planned sequels to his now-blockbuster Avatar, and now Entertainment Weekly has a few more details.

In its current issue, the magazine quotes the director as saying he left scenes in the movie to set up a subsequent movie. Or movies.

But not only did director James Cameron always believe that the film would be a hit—he was even planning a sequel during production. "I've had a storyline in mind from the start—there are even scenes in Avatar that I kept in because they lead to the sequel," Cameron says. "It just makes sense to think of it as a two or three film arc, in terms of the business plan."
It famously took Cameron 15 or more years to develop the tech and ideas for Avatar, but now that the infrastructure is in place, it won't take that long to mount a second movie, he added. And star Sam Worthington has already signed on for a sequel.

Earlier, Cameron offered this to MTV.com:

Cameron made clear that the next film won't be a prequel, recounting previous backstory, but will begin after the events of the initial movie. "We'll follow Jake and Neytiri," he confirmed.

In fact, Cameron intends to follow the couple for another two films. "I have a trilogy-scaled arc of story right now, but I haven't really put any serious work into writing a script," he said.

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 14, 2010, 04:44:52 PM"I have a trilogy-scaled arc of story right now, but I haven't really put any serious work into writing a script,"

Evidently! mwahh.

I saw this film, hungover and high as hell so i walked out not even sure of why i liked it except, of course, that it was the most beautiful movie i've ever seen. Later, i was kind of dumbfounded to acknowledge that this was probably the first movie ever that i judged exclusively on looks. So that kind of started biting my self-esteem as a more vigilant viewer and an art fag. Ultimately i came to a boring understanding that the film was a technological breakthrough, an example of visual art with a good taste. Maybe a metaphor for some American political aggression in the third world or something trite like that too but i am sure no one gives a shit if that is the case. The thing i am concerned with, is how this 3d wave is going to play out on my favorite directors, whether they all are going to jump on the bandwagon and ride the 3d dick. I am not trying to be a conservative foundationalist here; i think it is a legitimate concern. I am just wondering what i'd feel if i saw the next Magnolia or something in 3d and whether that would take away from the idea of the film. Although, i am sure PTA would know better what would compromise his vision. Actually never mind, frog rain in 3d would be awesome... I guess i just feel weird... kind of bicurious maybe...

Quote from: polanski's illegitimate baby on January 16, 2010, 07:44:31 PM
it was the most beautiful movie i've ever seen.

How many movies have you ever seen?

Also, who are you?

Quote from: w a  l   r    u     s on January 16, 2010, 08:35:19 PM

Quote from: polanski's illegitimate baby on January 16, 2010, 07:44:31 PM
it was the most beautiful movie i've ever seen.

How many movies have you ever seen?

Also, who are you?

he's actually a pretty awesome new member, welcome man

Oh what, i have to introduce myself?  I thought the internet was all about anonymous shit talk. Oooops...:)

Quote from: w a  l   r    u     s on January 16, 2010, 08:35:19 PM

Quote from: polanski's illegitimate baby on January 16, 2010, 07:44:31 PM
it was the most beautiful movie i've ever seen.

How many movies have you ever seen?

Also, who are you?

Come one walrus, don't let the xixaxians who follow THE RULES OF MESSAGES BOARDS rub off on you. youcandobetter.


And DUDE (dude meaning polanski's illegitimate)  THere is internet etiquette. better learn now, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I did read the rules... five years ago when i first joined. I must've forgotten them. :) I also did not find it fitting to bust out with a self-analytical autobiography in an AVATAR thread. :) But, if you like, i can send you my resume so you can do my background check. :)

Until then, please enjoy my myspace http://www.myspace.com/playspace

To be fair, that "Introduce Yourself" thread is lost somewhere in the unsearchableness of XIXAX.  Without that, you pretty much just have to... start.

It's actually stickied at the top of Idle Chatter (here (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=2.0)). We don't need your autobiography, but it's nice to know who you are, where you're from, what your cinematic interests are, and maybe what prompted you to start posting after all this time as a member. It's not a requirement or anything, and despite warnings to the contrary, you won't be pilloried if you don't comply, but we always appreciate it.

YOU MADE ME LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT, POLKA!

I like that.

So, let me get this straight, every new member has to introduce himself yet, no one introduces themselves to a new member who is just as much of a member as any member joined before him. So, in fact, you have included a pyramid scheme in your board rules with top tier collecting all the information while keeping the bottom tier in utter ignorance and despair. Lets assume you're 5 minutes late for class and the teacher makes you introduce yourself because you're late. Would that make you feel welcome? No, you would say, im no different than these students; why do i have to introduce myself and they not? One reason this forum cannot be compared to an extracurricular club such as the Asian club or the Rainbow club is because i can physically join without introducing myself. If you joined an Asian club you would have to introduce yourself immediately in which case you would probably get a quick reply from a friendly group of asians. Do you guarantee 1300 members introducing themselves to me? Well if not, then i cannot participate in this unfair business. I am not at all saying that perhaps you should've made the board private. :) But, you cannot have a functioning mandatory informational pyramid scheme within a democratic forum of discussion. Anyway, i am just kidding. LOL

Jesus Christ, I don't care if he introduces himself.  I actually thought he was a fake account by someone else here, the username is the kind I'd expect out of a quick dummy account for an oddly dated joke.  For fuck's sake, my surname used to be kookookajoob.

Who he is just helps give context to the assertion that he's making, as in, what he considers beauty to be in relation to film.

Let's not overlook my first (actual) question:  Is this really the most beautiful film you've ever seen?

Quote from: polanski's illegitimate baby on January 17, 2010, 12:43:51 AM
So, let me get this straight

no no no. don't listen to Neil, he's a fucking idiot. and polka, as one of the admin, was just saying that sometimes (for most newbs who are bona fide newbs) it's useful for other members to let themselves be known sort of as a way to put a name to a face, so to speak.

but you don't need to do that, and no "newb" who comes bolting from the start in the way you hav would need to either. just keep on rockin each thread like you hav so far, you're on point and already one of the more valued members of the site by virtue of having complete, concise, and intelligible opinions on a wide array of films.

go you good thing!

And if you send in your nominations for the 2010 Xixax Awards before January 31st without complaining about how soon it is, you automatically become my favorite member (that offer actually applies to everyone here).

Quote from: polanski's illegitimate baby on January 17, 2010, 12:43:51 AM
Lets assume you're 5 minutes late for class and the teacher makes you introduce yourself because you're late. Would that make you feel welcome? No, you would say, im no different than these students; why do i have to introduce myself and they not? One reason this forum cannot be compared to an extracurricular club such as the Asian club or the Rainbow club is because i can physically join without introducing myself. If you joined an Asian club you would have to introduce yourself immediately in which case you would probably get a quick reply from a friendly group of asians.

hahaha

P, guys, it was a joke.  We all know I caught a ton of shit, because i didn't properly introduce myself.

I understand sarcasm can be difficult to detect on the internet, but I was simply doing just that, being sarcastic.

Welcome!

Back to avatar?

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ff.imagehost.org%2F0705%2Favatar.jpg&hash=877ddc6f90b6ed6e03f745ebf68dd0120640ac44)

cause that would be a boring choice

Pretty much.

By beautiful, i meant, in the most superficial sense of the word. I certainly did not think anything of the story except, like i said, the political metaphor and some nuances of tolerance, love and other stock emotions. So, all in all, it was like half a movie for me. 

Avatar: The Abridged Script (http://www.the-editing-room.com/avatar.html)

Pretty funny.  A lot of obvious jokes, but they hit it on the head in a few places.  Best line: "ALL THINGS IN JAMES CAMERON'S DREAMS ARE POSSIBLE IN THE FUTURE!"

Man died after watching Avatar - doctor
From: AFP

A 42-year-old Taiwanese man with a history of high blood pressure has died of a stroke likely triggered by over-excitement from watching the blockbuster Avatar in 3D, a doctor says.

The man, identified only by his surname Kuo, started to feel unwell during the screening earlier this month in the northern city of Hsinchu and was taken to hospital.

Mr Kuo, who suffered from hypertension, was unconscious when he arrived at the Nan Men General Hospital and a scan showed that his brain was haemorrhaging, emergency room doctor Peng Chin-chih said today.

"It's likely that the over-excitement from watching the movie triggered his symptoms,'' the doctor said.

Mr Kuo died 11 days later from the brain haemorrhage, and the China Times newspaper said it was the first death linked to watching James Cameron's science-fiction epic Avatar.

Film blogging sites have reported complaints of headaches, dizziness, nausea and blurry eyesight from viewers of Avatar and other movies rich in 3D imagery.

haha, that's bullshit. That dude just died. He didn't have a heart attack because Avatar was too exciting. He died. It could have happened during a Ron Howard movie.

This film is getting ridiculous right now.

Quote from: Stefen on January 20, 2010, 04:00:18 PM
haha, that's bullshit. That dude just died. He didn't have a heart attack because Avatar was too exciting. He died. It could have happened during a Ron Howard movie.

This film is getting ridiculous right now.

There's usually always one of these type reports with any really big action movie or the newest 'scariest movie ever made.' This has been seen by so many people now (against my lame predictions) that the probability that someone dies in the middle of some screening somewhere around the world is probably pretty good.

I'm not doubting he died during Avatar. I'm just doubting the pure awesomeness of Avatar was the cause. That dude could have died watching Leno.

I die every time I watch Leno.

Here's a kind of loosely related Cameron sentiment that I'm sure P will find something to say about:

I wonder how many 1,000's, 10's of 1,000's of young boys Cameron was responsible for showing them their first breasts (Kate Winslet)? I didn't see Titanic until it had been out a while and since it was PG-13 I'm sure a lot of parents brought young kids to see it. I can remember a pair of young boys sitting behind me and wondering how awestruck they probably were during that scene.

With that in mind, I wonder if there is a whole generation of men who equate all breasts to that of Kate Winslet's at the time of Titanic.

I guess somewhat similar to the stigmata attached to Phobe Cates/Ridgemont, though that was much more sexual in context whereas the Titanic scene can be classified as 'artistic.'

P: Bigideas, is such a waste of a post. He noticed the young boys...he must be gay!

Bigideas: Yes, I realize it doesn't add anything to the Avatar discussion. Just something on my mind and a cinephilactic crowd is the only type that could even understand that sentiment. Nothing of note to start a new thread, I thought I would just throw it in a Cameron thread thinking someone else might find it interesting or wondering if anyone had even thought something along these lines.

And no, I am quite attracted to women, though I rarely feel the sentiment returned.

P: You know, I have to admit, you are so good you make ME waste a post just to tell you that YOU wasted a post. Ah...*swoons*...I love to hate you!

Everybody else: No, we agree. It was a waste of a post.

Bigideas: Ok. I am really more on lurker mode now anyway since I don't get to see most newer movies until months after they are on DVD. Most films I watch are older films and this board does not really promote the talk of older films unless in the context of a director's body of work (my idea of a thread where you list movies you have watched recently was shot down I think).

Luckily, I just(?!?) found out that you could get notifications without actually posting in the thread. In the past sometimes I would only make a short statement so I could get updates.

:shock:

I was with you until you went crazy.

Fun fact:  I used to know James Cameron's Nephew (Suzy Amis' nephew, really... and I haven't spoken to him in years) and he used to hang out with Cameron a lot (had some crazy stories about Uncle Richy Rich's Riches) and told me (not in a joking way) that Cameron confirmed that Kate Winslett's nipple was CG'd over because Cameron didn't like the way it looked (slightly inverted).

I've always wondered if that was true.  Not something I would normally believe... but I think Cameron at least TOLD him that.

hahaha I'm sure it's true! Stefen will be in shock

fun fact: James Cameron lived in my neighborhood community in the 70s (Placentia, CA). in '98 he led the town's annual parade that went down the street that parallels mine (didnt live here at the time tho). he also went to college in the town i lived in prior to (Fullerton, CA). no one cares about this information in real life the way i do so a cinephilacticific crowd such as you guyses is the only type that could ever understand such a sentiment. i often lay in bed, imagining all the cinephilia jism he mustve spunked up in my hood: liquid effects, manipulated water, blue ppl, perfect nipples...

Quote from: RegularKarate on January 22, 2010, 10:59:00 AM
Fun fact:  I used to know James Cameron's Nephew (Suzy Amis' nephew, really... and I haven't spoken to him in years) and he used to hang out with Cameron a lot (had some crazy stories about Uncle Richy Rich's Riches) and told me (not in a joking way) that Cameron confirmed that Kate Winslett's nipple was CG'd over because Cameron didn't like the way it looked (slightly inverted).

Quote from: Pas Rap on June 15, 2009, 05:14:24 PM
she has the ugliest godforsaken tits tho

VALIDATED!

Bigideas, you should make that script you wrote into a double feature with an intermission. Has anyone really seen Avatar? lol

Quote from: bigideas on January 22, 2010, 10:18:15 AM
I guess somewhat similar to the stigmata attached to Phobe Cates/Ridgemont, though that was much more sexual in context whereas the Titanic scene can be classified as 'artistic.'

I love that movie.

Gremlins 3 in 3D thanks to Jim Cameron. Just read it on the wire.

Everything in 3D thanks to Jim Cameron. Why did we give this guy power again? What the fuck did we get ourselves into?

Quote from: Stefen on January 25, 2010, 03:46:07 AM
Gremlins 3 in 3D thanks to Jim Cameron. Just read it on the wire.

Everything in 3D thanks to Jim Cameron. Why did we give this guy power again? What the fuck did we get ourselves into?

Exactly, no one gave a fuck when "Jaws 3D" came out. Hm..

It's official: Avatar is now the highest-grossing movie EVER
Source: SciFi Wire

It's official: As expected, James Cameron's Avatar on Monday officially pulled ahead of Cameron's other big movie, about some boat, to become the biggest-grossing movie of ALL TIME.

Twentieth Century Fox said that the sci-fi epic had amassed an estimated global total box office take of $1.8437 billion, just ahead of Titanic's worldwide total of $1,843,201,268, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The worldwide crown isn't adjusted for inflation, and Avatar's high grosses were certainly boosted by higher ticket prices overall and especially for 3-D and IMAX screenings. (Check BoxOfficeMojo for the full list of inflation-adjusted grosses.)

So if you haven't seen Avatar yet, you're the only one.

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 26, 2010, 12:59:36 AM
So if you haven't seen Avatar yet, you're the only one.

Not a bad feeling. If this movie would have come out in the summer when all the other options for me were Hollywood movies that wanted to be Avatar, then I would be more about seeing it, but my shit city is starting to get some decent movies courtesy of award season so I'll happily pass on an overpriced special effects show.

If you're ever going to see it you gotta do it in a 3d big screen. Otherwise I would argue is pretty much pointless.

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 26, 2010, 12:59:36 AM
It's official: Avatar is now the highest-grossing movie EVER
Source: SciFi Wire

It's official: As expected, James Cameron's Avatar on Monday officially pulled ahead of Cameron's other big movie, about some boat, to become the biggest-grossing movie of ALL TIME.

Twentieth Century Fox said that the sci-fi epic had amassed an estimated global total box office take of $1.8437 billion, just ahead of Titanic's worldwide total of $1,843,201,268, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The worldwide crown isn't adjusted for inflation, and Avatar's high grosses were certainly boosted by higher ticket prices overall and especially for 3-D and IMAX screenings. (Check BoxOfficeMojo for the full list of inflation-adjusted grosses.)

So if you haven't seen Avatar yet, you're the only one.

In a decade's time we're going to look back and blame this movie for ruining the movie business (and I'm speaking purely from a budgetary/revenue perspective).

Quote from: ©brad on January 26, 2010, 10:57:49 AM

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 26, 2010, 12:59:36 AM
It's official: Avatar is now the highest-grossing movie EVER
Source: SciFi Wire

It's official: As expected, James Cameron's Avatar on Monday officially pulled ahead of Cameron's other big movie, about some boat, to become the biggest-grossing movie of ALL TIME.

Twentieth Century Fox said that the sci-fi epic had amassed an estimated global total box office take of $1.8437 billion, just ahead of Titanic's worldwide total of $1,843,201,268, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The worldwide crown isn't adjusted for inflation, and Avatar's high grosses were certainly boosted by higher ticket prices overall and especially for 3-D and IMAX screenings. (Check BoxOfficeMojo for the full list of inflation-adjusted grosses.)

So if you haven't seen Avatar yet, you're the only one.

In a decade's time we're going to look back and blame this movie for ruining the movie business (and I'm speaking purely from a budgetary/revenue perspective).

the studios will wrongly attribute the success to the imax 3D factor in a desperate scramble to pump out more and more. and truthfully, it was star wars and jaws that did the same thing in the late 70s/early 80s. they changed the industry from a budgetary/revenue perspective like you say and it was only a decade later that it could be seen as a more bad than good thing. bottom line is good movies can still ruin the movie business, and even if they're not responsible for the financial reaction and doppelganger copy-catting.

If the studios are making money on their 3D blockbusters, it bodes well for them giving money away for smaller fare, which is a good thing, I suppose.

Will this movie be a popular DVD/Blu-ray buy? What do you all think?

The best Cameron could hope for is a package of the movie with those crappy red/blue glasses and hope for the best, right? Is Avatar mostly spectacle? Can the movie stand on it's own without the 3D? For the first time in a while I think we can really discuss the future impact of watching 3D movies in a world without (for now) 3D televisions. Am I overstating how many people saw this movie in 3D at all? I just can't imagine watching it at home right now, with current technology. I won't do it. The movie itself wasn't good enough, in my opinion.

Blu-ray specs now include 3D.  Perhaps Avatar won't come out on Blu-ray until 3D TVs (which have been announced) are introduced.

I don't know if you need 3d tvs to watch it in 3d (although a 3D tv would undoubtedly be better). A few blu-rays have come out in the format like Coraline and Polar Express, albeit with the shitty cardboard glasses. I kept my glasses from the theater when I saw Avatar in hopes that they would work on my tv, but they probably won't.

Blu-ray.com has announced the first release of Avatar will not be in 3D, and will be released before June 30th.

Quote from: Derek on February 02, 2010, 08:09:30 PM
I don't know if you need 3d tvs to watch it in 3d (although a 3D tv would undoubtedly be better). A few blu-rays have come out in the format like Coraline and Polar Express, albeit with the shitty cardboard glasses. I kept my glasses from the theater when I saw Avatar in hopes that they would work on my tv, but they probably won't.

if 3D tvs are gonna be any different to the current 3D gimmick DVD releases like My Bloody Valentine 3D and coraline and polar express, they will hav to get rid of the cardboard glasses. the difference is that they still rely on the old BLUE/RED style of oldschool 3D. in case you didn't notice, when you watched Avatar in the cinemas your lenses were not BLUE/RED, they were clear.

it's a completely different system of 3D that works by projecting two separate images at the screen at the same time, one eye sees one layer the other sees the other, they are POLARIZED glasses. so i don't know 3D TVs will do that, but it definitely won't be with cardboard blue/red glasses that you get with current 3D dvd releases.

hope this helps.

Fuck 3D.

Quote from: ρ on February 04, 2010, 12:14:10 AM
it's a completely different system of 3D that works by projecting two separate images at the screen at the same time, one eye sees one layer the other sees the other, they are POLARIZED glasses. so i don't know 3D TVs will do that, but it definitely won't be with cardboard blue/red glasses that you get with current 3D dvd releases.

My understanding is that they use alternate-frame sequencing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate-frame_sequencing), where you have to wear these expensive LCD-shutter-glasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD_shutter_glasses) that actually "blink" for you in alternating order at such fast rates that you supposedly don't notice.  They blink in exact synchronization with the TV, which constantly alternates quickly between the two images of different perspectives.

Needless to say, whatever TV you have now cannot do this, so I don't know how anyone will be able to see Avatar in 3D in their homes until many, many years from now.

Quote from: matt35mm on February 04, 2010, 01:43:18 AM
so I don't know how anyone will be able to see Avatar in 3D in their homes until many, many years from now.

I guess what I'm asking is this: Will any of you buy this movie in a non-3D format? Did you enjoy the story enough to watch it that way at home?

jesus what are you a market researcher?  

one question at a time, no wonder no one really got what you were asking the first time.. count the question marks!

the ppl who buy every movie that gets released will buy it on whatever format they have decided to consume at the time, the macs and siliasses of the world,. but i think unless you got a blu-ray player with a really nice TV, the 2D version wouldn't be worth it. i don't even think i need to watch it more than the one time i saw it in cinemas.

i hav a feeling everyone knows at least ONE chump tho with an amazing entertainment set up who will definitely hav every reason to buy the film, and i imagine i will visit said chump once to see it again.

I think the DVD/Blu-Ray sales will be healthy, and probably comparable to any 2D blockbuster.  I certainly won't be buying it, but I wouldn't mind seeing it in 2D.

Anyway, here's a pretty fascinating 30-minute interview with James Cameron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aao0YSITuxc) on the creation of the technology for Avatar.  It's relatively detailed and covers some stuff that hasn't really been discussed that much in the articles I've read about the process of inventing these new camera systems.  Especially interesting are the various workarounds to the unexpected problems they ran into, such as how to simultaneously photographically shoot real human characters as well as digitally capture their motions for integration into a CG world that they are interacting with in real-time as seen by the new camera system, when any lighting that you use on the actors for photographic purposes will corrupt the light-based marker system used in performance capture.  If you find that sort of stuff interesting, even if you don't like the movie, you should enjoy this interview.

Quote from: ρ on February 04, 2010, 10:26:26 AM
jesus what are you a market researcher?

Pretty close to it.

I was a Sociology major in college and I now work for a large advertising firm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk7tUKaW59I

A short film about James Cameron's addiction to special effects.

I don't see any point in watching this at home. If the film was truly designed for IMAX 3d, then how can the home experience even remotely accomplish that?

3Dtv is, I think, a bad idea. A VERY expensive fad. I heard that football games could eventually be broadcast in 3D, but what's the fucking point? Are you REALLY going to think you can catch the ball?

Quote from: The Perineum Falcon on February 06, 2010, 01:01:40 PMAre you REALLY going to think you can catch the ball?

MARQUEE.

I think it's more than a fad, I think 3D will be looked back upon akin to when tv's went from black and white to color. Some may think that's drastic or overstating it, I don't. Imax or not, done well, 3D can be a more immersive experience no matter the size or format.

Quote from: Derek on February 06, 2010, 11:00:58 PM
I think it's more than a fad, I think 3D will be looked back upon akin to when tv's went from black and white to color. Some may think that's drastic or overstating it, I don't. Imax or not, done well, 3D can be a more immersive experience no matter the size or format.

No way. You didn't have to wear special eye-wear that hurt your eyes to enjoy color.

On his Twitter page, Roger Ebert quoted a study that asked people if they want all films to be 3D or not 3D. 99% of participants sided with not. I think 3D has some promise, but no 3D film is going to have an Avatar effect again with the public. Even if there is a film better visually, people's eyes will be too light adjusted to 3D for the upgrades to be appreciated.

I mentioned how 3D has artistic promise in another thread, but the last thing to do now is to start rolling out every film in 3D. Filmmakers will just use the technology in the most obvious ways. The onslaught of awfulness will make people turn their back on the technology. If 3D is every going to become truly a mass product, it will need to slowly evolve.

Quote from: Stefen on February 07, 2010, 12:20:36 AM

Quote from: Derek on February 06, 2010, 11:00:58 PM
I think it's more than a fad, I think 3D will be looked back upon akin to when tv's went from black and white to color. Some may think that's drastic or overstating it, I don't. Imax or not, done well, 3D can be a more immersive experience no matter the size or format.

No way. You didn't have to wear special eye-wear that hurt your eyes to enjoy color.

Actually, the cutting-edge technology that's being developed now is on screens that will display 3D without the need for glasses.  As far as I can figure, it's not talked about as much because it's still not quite there yet.  I'm not totally sure how it works (something to do with "directional blacklight technology," which I read about here (http://electronicdesign.com/content.aspx?topic=lcd-panels-display-3d-without-glasses20454&catpath=components)).  It only seems to work with small screens right now.  There is a large 3D TV that exists, but you need to look at it from sweet-spots to get the effect, such that if you moved your head, the effect wouldn't work, so that technology is still a while away, but it's coming.

James Cameron does discuss the small 3D screens here (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1) toward the end, and makes a prediction that in in 10-15 years, things like iPhones will be "in stereo."

Quote from: James CameronIn fact, I would go so far as to say that 10 or 15 years from now, stereo displays will be ubiquitous, from cinemas to open-air advertising, to home screens and down to handheld devices. IPhones will be in stereo. Small displays will especially benefit from stereo because the small size of the screen can be offset by using Z-depth to stack information, which will reduce visual clutter, or conversely increase the density of information held within a single visual field. It may be that eventually all of our news and information, as well as our sports and entertainment, will come to us in stereo.

In the future world shown in "Avatar," all display devices, including handheld devices and even photos, are all in 3-D.

Basically what this all points to is that, in the next 10-20 years, we'll be seeing TVs and personal handheld devices delivering 3D images without the need for glasses.  And apparently this technology doesn't strain your eyes.  His notion that you can "stack" information by depth, effectively packing more information onto smaller screens, is especially mind-blowing to me.

Considering how much technology has developed in the past 15 years, it's hard not to believe that this sort of stuff is inevitable, and we'll probably be taking it as much for granted as we do iPods/iPhones, powerful laptops, and HDTV now.  There's no way that we've peaked because it's still imaginable to achieve a more realistic image.  We won't peak at least until we actually get to an image that is as convincing as seeing it in real life, at which point it'll probably begin to develop into virtual reality technology where you can actually see, touch, smell, hear, taste whatever you want, and it won't feel like anymore of a gimmick than HDTV does to you now.  Not only is it imaginable, but rough forms of this kind of technology already exist.  They just need to be refined.  It's just a matter of time, assuming that there will be a market for this sort of stuff.  I'd imagine there would be a market, but maybe it won't be for movies.  We might all decide that 3D is as far as we want to go with movies, but what about video games, porn, The Food Network, etc.?  People will definitely want a complete virtual reality experience when it comes to that stuff.

So the 3D TVs that they're working on now where you need glasses are an obligatory phase (because companies want to capitalize on suckers who are anxious for 3D in their homes ASAP) of a much longer journey.  I think that the discussion of the serious viability of these kinds of 3D TVs with glasses is probably short-sighted.  I don't think James Cameron even gives that much of a fuck about these 3D TVs where you need glasses.  They're merely a small step on the way to something much bigger.

Wearing glasses would be the only thing to hold the technology back, I think. It changes constantly, I think every tv made now is widescreen, LCD LED or plasma pretty well. I'm not sure, but do they even make tube tv's anymore? Only ten years ago, these tv's were considered as luxuries.

The only future for 3Dtv is in porn. Think about it.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2708%2F4284637610_01c4f24e74.jpg&hash=67c9f31566dd3893bdd9ec674307d87b815efa0a)

they could at least spell Pocahontas correctly if they're gonna do a joke about an observation that was made by the real EVERYONE months ago.

the only way that would be funny is if it were actually from his facebook page. which it isn't. it's just a fail.

why did you post it? did you think it was real too?

I thought it was funny.

Quote from: Stefen on February 08, 2010, 08:46:11 PM
I thought it was funny.

then you're either being nice to neil or you've fallen off your game

that joke was abysmal.

Avatar jokes in general have been pretty disappointing really.
I expect more from the internet.

Quote from: RegularKarate on February 09, 2010, 11:35:13 AM
Avatar jokes in general have been pretty disappointing really.
I expect more from the internet.

You do?  Have you been to the internet lately?

Quote from: Ravi on February 09, 2010, 03:32:27 PM
You do?  Have you been to the internet lately?

I mean from that 1% that sticks out.

Are you talking about the internet's penis?

no, we're talking about the Avatar joke genre, and how people are fucking it up all over the internet with their misspelled OLD jokes!

Just saw this. FUCKING LOVED IT. I really did. 27 pages, fuck.

I liked that facebook joke.  P don't get so mad.

James Cameron Writing 'Avatar' Prequel -- But Not For The Big Screen
Director plans to write debut novel that tells the film's backstories, producer Jon Landau reveals.
Source: MTV

It's the highest-grossing film of all time, possesses the most Oscar nominations of any film heading into next month's ceremony and is the word on everyone's lips: "Avatar." Now, James Cameron is beginning work on a prequel — but it won't be coming soon to a theater near you.

"Jim is going to write a novel himself," the film's producer, Jon Landau, told us when he stopped by the MTV News studios recently. "Not a novelization — and there is a distinction. A novelization basically retells the story of the movie. Jim wants to write a novel that is a big, epic story that fills in a lot of things."

Ever since "Avatar" mania engulfed Hollywood, rumors and small details have leaked out about possible prequels, sequels, comic books and novelizations. But Landau's comments appear to indicate the first definitive plan to provide more from the "Avatar" world to the seemingly endless appetite of its fans.

"[We] won't have time to do [these stories] in the movie, or maybe in sequels," Landau explained of what Cameron will be writing about. "[So the novel will] give a foundation for the world.

"It would be something that would lead up to telling the story of the movie, but it would go into much more depth about all the stories that we didn't have time to deal with — like the schoolhouse and Sigourney [Weaver's character] teaching at the schoolhouse; Jake on Earth and his backstory and how he came here; [the death of] Tommy, Jake's brother; and Colonel Quaritch, how he ended up there and all that," Landau explained.

Although Cameron has extensive writing credentials, including the screenplays for everything from the first two "Terminator" films to "Titanic," the "Avatar" prequel would mark his debut as a novelist.

"I don't think Jim has ever written a novel before, but his first step of writing a script is often in a novella format," Landau said. "So this is just expanding that, and I think that he'll be very adept at it."

If the "Avatar" prequel novel is a success, Cameron and Landau could potentially follow in the footsteps of George Lucas, opening up their sci-fi universe to other authors for interpretation. "We certainly have stories that are set before the movie opens and after," he explained. "I think that what we want to do is find out what mediums those stories are best told in. There might be opportunities in publishing to tell some of the backstory, tell some of the Earth war stories, what went on in Jake's life before the movie. And we'd have that lead up to the sequel that might take place on Pandora several years after our movie closed."

As for when "Avatar" fans can look forward to experiencing Cameron's novel, Landau had some encouraging news: "I'm hoping by the end of this year."

Quote from: The Perineum Falcon on January 13, 2010, 10:11:58 AM
i can't wait til books are 3D.

James Cameron on the Coming DVD Release of 'Avatar'
Source: Wall Street Journal

In a wide-ranging interview today, director James Cameron said that his blockbuster movie "Avatar" will have a 3-D Blu-ray release later this year.

The Oscar-winning filmmaker, who is nominated for best director at the coming Oscars, said that with a wave of companies set to release 3-D compatible TVs, the time was right to issue his film in 3-D for the home viewer.

"It's all right on schedule," said Cameron. "We'll do the Blu-ray and the standard def DVD April 22nd, that's our plan as of right now, and that'll be pretty much bare bones. And then we'll do a value-added DVD and a 3-D Blu-ray in I think November sometime."

Fox Home Entertainment couldn't confirm the release dates.

[UPDATE: A spokesman for Fox Home Entertainment said on Thursday night that the "3-D is in the conceptual stage and 'Avatar' will not be out on 3-D Blu-ray in November."]

Cameron said he hopes to do a sequel to "Avatar" but he wants to do it "cheaper and faster." He said the sequel will be "a continuation of the same characters. We're going to widen the universe in quotes, meaning the envelope of the setting of the story."

"Avatar" was released by Twentieth Century Fox, a division of News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.

The director has said he wants to try to shine a light on environmental issues by playing up the green aspects of "Avatar." "We're not going to bequeath to our children a world that's a sustainable world at the rate that we're going," he said. "It's gonna take a fundamental reboot of the way we view our relationship with the natural world and each other and with business and with the economy...that indefinite growth is not a good thing."

April 22, the date Cameron said is set for the release of the initial DVD and Blu-ray of "Avatar," is also Earth Day.

Cameron has been promoting his Oscar candidacy this week in New York, but he said he's also pulling for the success of his ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow, who is nominated for best director for "The Hurt Locker." She could become the first woman to win in the category–but she'd have to beat Cameron. "Honestly, it blunts my desire to go after it quite so aggressively, because I'd love to see her feted and anointed as the first female director [to win an Oscar]," says Cameron.

Cameron also fondly recalled directing Bigelow in a 1980s music video called "Reach" that was shot for Bill Paxton's band Martini Ranch. The clip has recently gotten attention on the Web.

"The whole thing was made for some ridiculously small amount of money, everyone did it for free," says Cameron of the music video. "And I had met Kathryn recently, she had just cast Bill in 'Near Dark'...we talked her into playing the Clint Eastwood character and of course she was great. I think that's the only acting I ever heard of her doing."

[Note: an earlier headline to this story made a reference to the "Avatar" 3-D Blu-ray release date. The headline was changed after Fox Home Entertainment said that the 3-D Blu-ray would not be released in November.]

http://vimeo.com/9389738 (http://vimeo.com/9389738)

Almost as unfunny as the last thing few things i posted in this thread.

Fox mulling 'Avatar' summer re-release
Fox, Cameron in discussions; additional scenes being eyed
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Get ready for "Avatar"-plus. 

James Cameron and Fox are in discussions about rereleasing "Avatar," primarily in 3D theaters, in late summer -- and, tantalizingly, with additional scenes that had been left on the cutting-room floor in the rush to ready the epic for its Dec. 18 release.

The impetus for a rerelease is the feeling that, even though "Avatar" is the highest-grossing movie of all time, producers could have raked in even more money had they been able to hold on to the digital and Imax 3D screens that were lost when Disney opened "Alice in Wonderland" in 3D on March 5.

As for how much additional footage Cameron might add to "Avatar," the guessing began early Thursday when Imax CEO Richard Gelfond said during a Gabelli & Co. investor conference in New York that Cameron had about 40 minutes of additional material that didn't make the theatrical cut. He also predicted a rerelease, which he said probably would occur in the fall.

Cameron had said that he had 10-12 minutes of extra scenes that he cut and could quickly put through postproduction and have ready to add to a director's cut for a theatrical reissue or as an extra on the DVD release. One scene has to do with Jake Sully's avatar proving himself to the Na'vi people; the other involves a native festival during which tribe member Tsu'tey gets drunk.

The maximum length a movie can be released in analog Imax theaters is 170 minutes -- a number Cameron was aware of when he made his original edit -- so he could add about 10 minutes to the 160-minute current run time and still be in all Imax locations. That seems more likely than trying to add as much as 40 minutes.

The week before "Alice" arrived, Fox's movie still was minting millions in 4,215 North American theaters, including 179 Imax sites. This week, it dropped to a theater count of 667, including eight Imax 3D locations, resulting in a 41% week-over-week drop in grosses.

Through March 4, "Avatar" had grossed $127.1 million of its $712.5 million domestic haul in Imax theaters; this week's giant-screen take was $175,884.

"Avatar" has done more than 80% of its domestic business in 3D theaters, which represented fewer than half of its runs.

The film also has grossed $1.9 billion outside North America for a total of about $2.6 billion. It has helped expand 3D globally and broken records worldwide.

When "Avatar" was forced off Imax screens -- after the longest and most lucrative run in Imax history -- to accommodate "Alice," Fox saw increased grosses on nearby digital 3D screens, an indication that demand remains.

How much did the film leave behind? Cameron was in New York this week for a demonstration of 3D TV and told USA Today, "The word we're getting back from exhibitors is we probably left a couple hundred million dollars on the table as a result."

The summer rerelease would follow a home video premiere in 2D form, which will happen as soon as next month and no later than May.

Cameron told USA Today there might be a Blu-ray Disc release of the 3D version for home use as early as the fall, but Fox studio sources indicate that is unlikely. They believe there won't be enough of an installed base of 3D TV sets to make that worthwhile and said it is more likely to come next year.

Cameron and Fox also are in discussions about one or two sequels to "Avatar" that would use many of the digital "assets" that were created for the original. There is no script or deal in place, but the filmmaker and studio have indicated that it is something they would like to do. 

'Avatar' DVD, Blu-ray release date set
3D version expected to be released next year
Source: Hollywood Reporter

LAS VEGAS -- With 3D phenom "Avatar" all the rage at the ShoWest convention of movie theater operators here this week, Fox Home Entertainment said Tuesday the blockbuster will hit DVD and Blu-ray Disc in 2D versions on April 22.

"Avatar" discs also will be simultaneously released in most global markets. An April release had been expected, but the studio hadn't set a specific street date until now.

A 3D version of the pic is expected to be released for home-entertainment sometime next year. "Avatar" has rung up $2.6 billion in worldwide boxoffice since its theatrical release on Dec. 18.

James Cameron & Glenn Beck Start War Of Words

James Cameron knows one FOX host who doesn't think he's king of the world - Glenn Beck.

After the "Avatar" director had some choice words for the outspoken TV talker at a junket appearance on Tuesday, Beck took to his "The Glenn Beck Program" to respond, admitting that he had referred to the director as the "anti-Christ" on his CNN show in 2007.

"This guy has carried this joke around with him for three long years," Beck said. "The guy's making $1 billion on a Smurf-murdering movie and he's stewing about a joke that nobody heard on a network nobody watched."

After donning 3-D glasses for a moment to spoof Cameron's film (which has grossed over $2 billion worldwide), the host also attacked the director's stance on global warming.

Playing a clip from Cameron that found the director stating, "I want to call those [global warming] deniers into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads," Beck said, "Since he took my anti-Christ joke so seriously, I guess I have to ask James, stop threatening to shoot people in the street... 79 percent of the Americans who aren't convinced greenhouse gases are the most important factor in the planet's warming. Why must you kill all of them? Why must you kill all of them?"

On Tuesday, Cameron - who is releasing the DVD of "Avatar" in conjunction with Earth Day - laid into the controversial FOX host.

"Glenn Beck is a f***ing a******. I've met him. He called me the anti-Christ, and not about 'Avatar,'" Cameron said, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "He hadn't even seen 'Avatar' yet. I don't know if he has seen it."

Considering his words, the director then stepped back a bit.

"I think, you know what, he may or may not be an a******, but he certainly is dangerous, and I'd love to have a dialogue with him," Cameron said. "His ideas are poisonous... anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their a** I'm not sure they could hear me."

lol at these two assholes.

Still, Cameron would beat the shit out of Beck. It'd be awesome.

GOD.  There is no end to Glenn Beck's moronic moronity.  I'm not gonna bother to defend Cameron, but here is further proof that Beck's tactics and (lack of) reasoning abilities make him the Joe McCarthy of today, with "progressivism" standing in for "communism."  How the fuck, Glenn, do you jump from what Cameron said to "Why do you want to kill 79 percent of Americans?"  (It's also total bullshit that 79% of Americans don't think greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming.)  I've seen his show and he says these things SERIOUSLY.  He doesn't move from that dramatic example onto another point, but rather, that IS his final point!  His final point is: There is something wrong with someone who wants to kill 79 percent of Americans, therefore James Cameron is wrong about everything.  That's his grand fucking conclusion.  The logic that he uses on his show is no better.

South Park nailed it when they had Eric Cartman as Glenn Beck.  They're the same breed of asshole.

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 25, 2010, 05:32:22 PM
"Why must you kill all of them? Why must you kill all of them?"

Hahaha. The repetition nails it - this guy is a genius of inanity. I find him hilarious, veering into terrifying; if I was from the States I might be leaning more towards the latter, but at the moment I'm happy to just sit back an enjoy his circus of stupid. Even if it IS a circus that simultaneously makes the blood run cold.

Jon Landau on the Avatar Blu-ray Release
Source: Edward Douglas; ComingSoon

Having set international box office records, James Cameron's sci-fi epic Avatar brought a lot of people who rarely go to the movies back into theaters over the last four months, in large part due to the use of innovative and patented 3D technology that helped pull people into the world of Pandora along with Sam Worthington's Jake Sully.

When it comes to the movie's release on Blu-ray and DVD, one would think it would be just as groundbreaking, so many people were surprised to learn a no-frills movie-only version would be released on Earth Day, April 22, just four months after the movie's theatrical release. There's definitely a method to the madness, including Cameron wanting to release the highest quality high-definition version of the movie as possible, using the entire capacity of a Blu-ray disc for that, rather than including lots of bells and whistles. Instead, they'll be saving that for a four-disc version being prepared for November which will include deleted scenes, a two-hour documentary on the making of the movie and more.

Last week, ComingSoon.net sat down with the film's producer, Jon Landau from Lightstorm Entertainment, to pose some of the questions that many people have about the movie, the DVD/Blu-ray release and the technical aspects of each, which he was more than happy to answer.

ComingSoon.net: I talked to Sam last year and he mentioned how James really wanted to bring people back into theaters and give them the ultimate theatrical experience. Now you have the Blu-ray coming out with the best possible picture. Could you talk about why you guys decided to release this so soon rather than waiting?
John Landau: Two things – when you say so soon it's funny because it's wrong.

CS: It's been four months, but the movie's still playing well in theaters and is still in the Top 12.
Landau: Yeah, but there's such a demand worldwide for people who want to return to Pandora that we felt that to do it. With the added content that we want to do in today's day and age - the internet has made behind the scenes footage available prior to a DVD release, so you can't just put that on there because people have seen that already. You have to create original content to support the added value material. So we needed the time in order to create the appropriate added value content including scenes that weren't in the movie that Weta Digital is now taking four to five months to finish scenes to be in the movie. We just couldn't wait for a DVD release until November and we couldn't get that content ready before then. So we chose to say, "Let's get rid of all the frills. Let's get rid of trailers. Let's get rid of commercials. Let's get rid of director's commentary and utilize every available bit of this space for the presentation of the film itself." We went with very simplistic menus again because things that I didn't know about before we sort of had this mandate of say, "Can we elaborate on the menu a little bit?" They said, "We could, but you have to do nine different versions and you gotta do it in French, you gotta do it in Spanish and you gotta do all this different branching and it's gonna take up this space, so you're gonna lose something off of the picture quality," and we just didn't want to do that.

CS: So are you talking in the future about having a director's cut?
Landau: Well, this is the director's cut.

CS: But you mentioned additional scenes.
Landau: Right, but again, I think another thing that was very important for Jim is that the movie go out the first time as the director's cut. This is his version of the movie. Anything we do down the road, it's going to be fan-based. Jim put his best foot forward. There's a lot of stuff that's great content. There was really no scene in the movie that did not work as a part, but to create the best version of the whole as a way to introduce the world to "Avatar," it's this version of the movie. Now that people are a little bit more familiar with the world, do you have another couple of minutes to tell a little bit more of the back story, behind the scenes in the school that Sigourney taught at? Do you have time to see a little more action of Jake maybe in his training? You know, those are the type of things that we might have more room to do now and would make available.

CS: I wanted to ask about the four-month gap from the theatrical release. That's normally an adequate period of time for a movie to go to DVD but your movie is anomaly, having been #1 for seven weeks and still in theaters. Since people can still see it in theaters, why release it on DVD now?
Landau: Look, I don't think the two experiences are mutually exclusive. I think that there are gonna be people who say, "I want to go see 'Avatar' on an IMAX screen and get the DVD." I mean, I think its two different experiences and fulfills two different requirements. I think it's interesting that people make a big deal when people go back and see a movie again for a second time. However, they don't make a big deal when we listen to a piece of music over and over and over. It's really to me, that same type of thing, and what owning the disc does, it's like owning an album. You don't have to wait to go see the concert, but when the concert's available for your favorite band, you still go see it. But in the meantime you have it. I think that's the way with these type of movies it works. With "Star Wars" it works that way. With some of the comedies that have been very successful in the home entertainment. People want that because it's their way of listening to music.

CS: Does the home format change the emphasis of the movie at all?
Landau: No, no, and nor does 3D. I think there's a lot of misconception about that. We made this movie in 2D. And by that I mean we shot it in 3D, but we edited it in 2D. We wrote in 2D, I mean, we didn't change the writing. The character journeys and their stories are 2D based. We mix and score in 2D. The first time we saw the movie as a whole in 3D was two weeks before its release. No, we'd seen shots and so we knew what the 3D was and that there were no technical problems, but the creative aesthetics of putting together a movie were the same ones that we would do in 2D and I think that applies to whether you're going to the theaters or whether you're going into the home.

CS: I've talked to a bunch of people about making 3D movies and the biggest problem seems to come down to how the movies are edited where movies with lots of edits makes it harder to adjust to the 3D than ones with longer shots.
Landau: Can I get technical and geeky for a second? (Laughs) Okay, so the problem being in the past that the camera, the capture system, did not allow the cameras to simulate human vision. I mean, my eyes continue to converge on my finger, they tow in and they tow out. If you put that into your camera, you're not asking the audience to do it when they watch a movie. So, therefore, if you converge, which is where you intersect, at your subject of focus you can cut as fast as you want because that subject of focus will always be at the screen plane because if you take off your glasses and watch 3D, where you see one image is the screen plane. Where it's crossed, it's in front of the screen plane and where it's separated, it's behind the screen plane. So where you have a problem is if you have a shot that's behind the screen plane that you're looking at, the focus is, and then one that's in front and then one that's back and one that's behind. But, if you're always converged at your subject of focus, the audience is looking there and it's cutting, cutting, cutting, cutting and you don't have a problem.

CS: You are adjusting convergence while you're filming rather than having it remain static per shot...
Landau: We call it dynamic convergence. We have dynamic convergence and dynamic inner ocular. Inner ocular is the distance between the two lenses that creates the sense of stereo. The greater the inner ocular, the more stereo, a zero inner ocular is 2D. So that's sort of the easiest way to... (motioning with his hands to show the differences) well, that's 2D, that's a little 3D. That's a lot 3D, that's probably too much 3D because you might have one camera on that shoulder and one camera on that shoulder. So you don't want that.

CS: What percentage of the gross for "Avatar" was from 3D vs. 2D?
Landau: You know, I don't know those statistics and again, I think it changes territory by territory interestingly enough because in some territories they don't have any 3D, but that didn't stop the movie from being successful. I think if I had to guess here in the States I think surprisingly it was probably 60, 40 3D. I think we would've thought that it would've been less, but I think it's interesting. That's why I think that you're gonna see hopefully with "Avatar" the Blu-ray sales out-percentage the normal, home entertainment release because I think people have associated with "Avatar" in seeing it in a certain type of quality presentation. So, that despite the fact that this movie was the most pirated movie of all time, it's also the number one box office movie of all time 'cause people said, "Okay, I could get it here, but I still want to see it that way." So if somebody might download it to their iPhone, I think they're still gonna say, "You know what? I still wanna see it if I have a Blu-ray player, that's gonna be on Blu-ray."

CS: With all the talk of 3D, will we see a 3D version on Blu-ray as well?
Landau: Well, I think ultimately there definitely will be. I think right now it's too premature. We would a little bit be the egg coming before the chicken. (Laughs) You know, we've worked with a lot of the manufacturers to ensure that there's gonna be a high quality of 3D out there in the marketplace, but the last thing you want to do is go out on some of these screens you've seen in the past where the quality just isn't there.

CS: By November and December, there should be 3D TVs from several companies in the marketplace, selling for the Christmas season.
Landau: I think there will be and we just have to evaluate how the consumer's embracing that over the next months and what format really takes hold. We spent a lot of time on this initial release going back in and color timing. Jim spent a week with the color time as he did for the movie where he went and didn't have one monitor in front of him, he had an array of monitors that represented what is in the home marketplace today to make sure that the colors in the world is representative of what the movie was. When we did our encoding down to the disc, we didn't spend the normal two weeks, we spent five weeks and had people from Lightstorm monitoring what was gonna be there. We want to be able to do the same thing (with 3D) and have the time to do it when we see which one takes the best hold out there in the marketplace. I would love for it to be December, it might be next June. I mean, it's gonna be when there is enough of a penetration in the marketplace that warrants the time and effort to do it and to make sure we do it right.

CS: We're talking a lot about visuals, what about the audio?
Landau: The audio, we did a special mix for the home entertainment with our same mixers, Chris Boyes and the folks from Skywalker came in and Jim supervised it and we did it for home theater systems and made it work. There was some adjusting that needed to happen, but look, I think that a movie is no one thing. A movie is not just visuals. A movie is not just this. It's the whole. In fact, sound is a very important aspect of that, so they spent a lot of time doing that.

CS: A lot of movies are gonna benefit from the technology and work that was done on "Avatar" even if they have nothing to do with "Avatar."
Landau: Well, I think the industry and the consumer are going to benefit because to me, I think what "Avatar" has done more than anything else, it's opened a small crack in the door that is now gonna allow filmmakers to make movies that otherwise could not be made. You know, movies that now have CGI, computer generated characters at the center of it, but characters that can be engaging or emotive. You know, there have been great stories locked in the heads of filmmakers, or on the great pages of literature that just have no way to be realized. Maybe now is, again, a small crack in that door.

CS: Paul Anderson is actually using the same camera system for his "Resident Evil" movie, but how about these movies that are shooting in 2D and then converting and people aren't happy with the results. I'm not going to say names because we all know what we're talking about.
Landau: Well look, here's what I would say about conversion. Conversion is an artistic process and not a technical process and you have to involve the creative team and the filmmakers in that process. To do anything artistically takes time. To try and do something in seven weeks or 10 weeks while the filmmaker is still finishing the movie and shots are still being delivered by the visual effects company can not be anything but a technical process and can be nothing at times, more than a poor technical process. I say to filmmakers out there who are considering it, I say, "You know what? Fine, if you want to do that why don't you just shoot your movie in black and white and convert it to color at the end?" It's the same thing. You would not allow someone else to go colorize your movie after you shot it on black and white because how you shoot it and how you light it and the color, it's an artistic thing that you're a part of. Shoot it in 3D, you have the technology capability to do it now. There's this misconception that 3D takes longer in post. I'll argue it's shorter in post, why? Because, when you shoot on a set it's all digital now with 3D. You see your dailies live. So you don't have to wait for it to come back. You know what you're really getting or you don't know what you're getting and you can redo it if you want to do it. Even on the visual effects side, when you're doing it, it's really about render time. So it's just about how many computer processors you want to put on to add time. We had companies that came in, ILM came onto "Avatar" to help us out with additional shots and they had several hundred shots that they completed in less than 18 weeks which is a normal post production process. So if they could do it coming late to the game and not have the advantage of production and all of that, you can do that for any film.

CS: Yeah, but that's ILM.
Landau: No, but ILM – we had others. Prime Focus came on. We had Hydrolics come on. We ended up with nine different vendors who did work. It's again, in today's world where, you know, computer technology is what it is, it's amazing. Interestingly enough, and the costs are not that exorbitant because something that cost us on "Titanic" literally for one terabyte of storage, high end storage capabilities, digital domain had to go to the board to get special permission for $750,000 for one terabyte of storage. On "Avatar," Weta Digital had a petabyte of storage just as a normal – I mean, you could not have done that at $750,000 a pop. (Laughs)

CS: How much more expensive would it be for someone to use this camera technology developed for "Avatar," and how much more would it add onto movies that might want to use the system?
Landau: Let's separate the systems. So you have the 3D live action camera system and then you have the virtual system. So as you talk about "Resident Evil," they're just the 3D. I would say two to three percent on their overall budget. People are like, always shocked when I say that until I walk them through it and say, "Okay, what is normally the largest cost of a movie above the line, you know, it's a big chunk of it – the stars, the director, the script. You don't pay more for that in 3D. All right, what's the next big cost? Construction – building sets. You don't pay more for that. You don't pay more for set dressing. 3D effects three areas of a budget – your camera department, your camera equipment, even if you say it's double, but that's one small part of the camera budget, and maybe you have one additional staff person on. Your director of photography doesn't get more. They're the most expensive person in that department. Then you have finishing costs. You have, when you do your color timing you're doing two eyes instead of one, but again, not that extensive an area of a budget. Then, you have visual effects. Visual effects, it's a little bit like a bell curve. If you're doing a pure live action movie, you're at the bottom of the bell curve, there's no added visual effects costs. As you get into a hybrid of CGI and live action, you get to the top of the bell curve and then as you go back to all CGI, you come back to the bottom because that's then easy. So, even in the visual effects area, it only affects a small area of visual effects costs because if you do animation, you do it once. If you do lighting, you do it once. Those are the two most labor intensive areas. If you do rotoscoping which is cleaning up all the matte lines, you have to do that twice and you have to do rendering twice. But, that's again, a small fraction of that budget. So maybe your visual effects budget goes up 10 to 15 percent, but if you add those all up of the overall budget, it's only two to three percent of the overall budget.

CS: That's assuming that the visual effects budget for your movie is greater than the above the line.
Landau: It is, but it's still a small percentage because you're only going up in visual effects 10 percent, so if that represents 50 percent of your budget and you go up one percent in your budget, you really have a job at four or five percent to do your whole movie.

CS: What else can we expect from the special features in November?
Landau: We have some really great, I think, innovative ideas on really exposing the process. It's gonna be a four-disc collection when we come out with it, dedicating one disc to we'll call it a two-hour plus documentary about the journey of making the movie. We want to get into other behind the scenes branching availability, being able to see the movie at the different stages where you can really watch what we call the template version, which is what we turned over to Weta Digital, be able to watch animation passes back, picture in picture so you can see how the performances really track to what the actors did and everything like that. I don't know if we'll call it Special Edition or Uber Edition or Pandora Edition.

CS: Pandora's Box.
Landau: There you go.

CS: Are you going to have any sort of theatrical release for the documentary part of it?
Landau: I think it'll be more for the Blu-ray.

CS: When will we see "Titanic" on Blu-ray?
Landau: Our next plan for "Titanic" is to take the time and do a conversion right to 3D.

CS: So we're talking next year, the year after? Wait a minute, the anniversary's 2012.
Landau: There you go, which is also coincidentally the 15th anniversary of the film. So you have the ship sinking 100th anniversary. It might even be Paramount's 75th anniversary. I don't know. (Editor's Note: 2012 will actually be Paramount's 100th anniversary) There might be a whole bunch of stuff.

CS: People said they would never see that film because they knew the ending.
Landau: (Laughs) Exactly, exactly. Yeah, but it's interesting, I think people can never prejudge a film and what the journey is that you go on for any movie whether it be "Titanic" or "Avatar" or "Train Your Dragon" or any of these movies. You have to go see 'em and it's about the characters. It was really interesting when we did our first preview on "Titanic" in Minneapolis. We wanted to go to sort of the heartland of America. We knew that the movie was too long and our goal was to take the "t, o, o" out of that statement because we knew the movie would always be long. The best news that we got coming out of that screening is that where people felt it was too long was in the sinking. It wasn't like, "Get me to the sinking faster and lose that character stuff." It was, "Give me that character stuff, but I don't need the stuff that's not character based." That was really reinforcing to us about it. There was another thing that I'll just throw out which is that Jim said he learned something from "The Abyss." If you look at both "Titanic" and "Avatar," he lived by what he learned. He said, "The emotional climax has to come after the visceral climax," which it didn't in "The Abyss."

CS: Could you talk about the tie-in with Earth Day and then the plans to have a million trees planted?
Landau: When Fox came to us saying, "We love that." This idea was not doing the release on a normal Tuesday, but that Earth Day was the target day. I mean, we didn't pick this next week for any other reason but for Earth Day and being able to make that connection. You know, "Avatar" starts with and ends with the same image, eyes opening. By tying this to Earth Day, we are asking the public at large to open their eyes and just take a moment to appreciate the world around us. They don't have to do anything else at that point, but Fox has then made a commitment to plant one million trees before the end of the year. I asked them, "What does that mean, plant?" They said, "No, we're gonna plant and guarantee them to maturity." So they're just not gonna leave 'em and let 'em blow over in a storm or whatever because look, you plant it, a car drives over it, it's gone. So, it defeated that purpose. The only specifics that I know is in Brazil they will plant over 200,000 trees in Brazil alone. Then, the rest will be spread around the world. There's other programs that are going on. I know Jim is participating in an event in Los Angeles for inner city youth children on Earth Day sort of educating them about some of the environmental issues. We're a part of an event in Washington, D.C. on the 25th where Jim will actually be speaking at the Mall and talking about things. We are doing an event here in New York on the 24th with the United Nations about indigenous people around the world. So it's sort of just bringing into the public consciousness that this is an issue out there for them to just think about really.

CS: Was this something that was always planned while you were making the movie? Or did it just come about?
Landau: Earth Day was not planned. (Laughs) No, look, I believe that movies that are successful are movies that have themes that are bigger than their genre. When I was out there pitching the movie to people who knew nothing and just bring them into a cold room and try to tell them about the movie. I would talk about Jake and the journey that he went on and that he started out with a voiceover at the beginning of the movie that he always wanted to fight for something, but he never found anything truly worth fighting for. Then, when he came to Pandora, he learned. He learned to appreciate people of a different race, a different color, and it gave him the appreciation for the world around him which is something he never had before and that he learned that the corporation by mining the planet was destroying the planet and that that gave him for saying that was always worth fighting for. He then led the revolution. So that, I mean, that's how I pitched it five years ago starting in April of '05. So it was always part of the consciousness. Now, I will tell you there were skeptics on the outside at the studio who thought that we needed to downplay that, that the movie couldn't be "Ferngully." No, seriously, and these were issues. They didn't think it could be blue people. They didn't think they could have tails. It was like, this is why and this is why it's important.

CS: So much time will be spent between now and November putting together this other Blu-ray collection. How does that affect you and Jim working on other projects? Obviously it's been a long time between "Titanic" and "Avatar"; people all want to see you guys work on something else.
Landau: Well, I think the good news is that we have systems and methodologies in place that will not consume a lot of Jim's time. I think Jim's time will be surgical coming in. You know, we have a very good behind-the-scenes crews working on this two hour documentary that we want to put together. Jim's not doing it himself. We have Weta Digital working on these shots, but we've kept on our animation supervisor whose functioning now as our visual effects supervisor. So, he'll take all of us to a certain point and then Jim will be able to come in, but hopefully he'll be able to go off and get started on some other stuff.

CS: With all the projects he has with development over the years, have you guys looked at other directors for some of them?
Landau: Well, we've looked into directors on a movie called "Fantastic Voyage" that we're talking about. We've been in conversations with Paul Greengrass to do that. So, we are certainly open to that, but there are already a small number of movies that Jim wants to do himself. But, I think that he doesn't want to say that he can do things that he's not gonna have time for and we know that whatever movie he does is not gonna be done in six months. (Laughs)

CS: What kind of pressure do you have to do another "Avatar" movie, whether it's another Pandora movie, or another movie with Jake or whatever you're gonna do? Obviously, you had so many ideas in this movie, now you have to try and take another movie and try to make it as important.
Landau: Well, look, I think that one of the things that we have been successful at is that the most pressure we feel is our own pressure. I think that's true as we go through a movie and make a movie whether it be "Titanic" or "Avatar." Our pressure about an "Avatar" sequel is self-imposed. We've always said that if the public wanted a sequel that we would do a sequel. But, had that hadn't been said, in my opinion, Jim has done two sequels in his career and both times he has at least equaled if not surpassed the original movie. We are only gonna do it when we have a piece of material, the script that we believe will be at least as entertaining and as unique as the first movie was.

CS: The possibilities are so endless now due to the fact that you've got all sorts of new technology, that opens up some possibilities.
Landau: It is endless. Not only that, the hard part is out of the way. We figured out how to do it. Our goal in the next one is to do it more cost-effectively and more time-efficiently and we have kept on a team of our technical staff who is working right now on Gen 2 of what we did, but with all the experience that we've had – we've kept them on and they're working for us right now.

James Cameron: The 'Avatar' sequel will dive into the oceans of Pandora
Source: Los Angeles Times

On Thursday, which is Earth Day, Fox will release "Avatar" on DVD and Blu-ray, but James Cameron says a longer version of the film will be back in theaters in August -- and that the franchise will return with a seagoing sequel. Hero Complex contributor Patrick Kevin Day recently spoke with the filmmaker.

PD: Will we see an "Avatar" theatrical re-release this summer?

JC: We're working on finishing an additional six minutes of the film -- which includes a lot of Weta work -- for a theatrical re-release in August. We were sold out of our Imax performances right up to the moment until they were contractually obligated to switch to "Alice in Wonderland," so we know we left money on the table there. And the 3-D really helped "Avatar" right up until the moment that it hurt it. And it hurt it at the moment "Alice" and then "How to Train Your Dragon" and "Clash of the Titans" came in and sucked up all the 3-D screens. We went from declining 8% a week to declining 50%. Clearly, it wasn't market forces directly; it was the availability of theaters. So we're going to wait until there's a time to come back in, inject the new footage into the mix and see if we can interest people in the "Avatar" experience in theaters.

It'll be interesting because it'll be on DVD by then, but I think "Avatar" is kind of a unique category where people are enjoying the unique theatrical experience even though they may have seen it on the small screen. They want to have that immersive, transportive experience. "2001: A Space Odyssey" played for three years at the Loews cinema in Toronto. I remember that. It just kept playing. People wanted to return to that experience. That may not be the best example because I think "2001" took 25 years to break even.

PD: What goes through your mind when you hear that officials in China changed the name of a peak in Zhangjiajie peak to Avatar Hallelujah Mountains or that Palestinian protesters are dressing as Na'vi?

JC: I think it's really interesting that these people see their reality reflected in the movie. And of course this is what's caused all of these [environmental] groups to come to us and say, "Can you help us? Can we do fundraising? Can you help with awareness? Can we associate our website? Can we link to 'Avatar'?" All of these things. Right now, my challenge is to orchestrate this in a way that "Avatar" can continue to do some good. I think the movie itself is reaching people all over the world, which it clearly did by the amount of money it made. It created a sense of an emotional response to this environmental crisis and I think it even may have made it an emotional call to action. The next step is people need to know what to do -- what do I specifically do in my life next so that I don't feel helpless and powerless.

PD: Does it change your outlook as a creator of entertainment?

JC: Well, I think it makes certain projects that I liked as potential films seem trivial by comparison. I think it makes the idea of making another "Avatar" film more attractive. Because not only is it good business, but it's good for the environment. I think every model we should use in evaluating any environmental project moving forward should be: Is it good business and is it good for the environment? Because there's this idea promoted by the right and by special interest groups that you have to choose. You can either have a strong economy or you can help the environment, but you can't do both at the same time. That's ridiculous. In fact, as a sustainable vision for a healthy economy has to involve changing our energy policy and changing with respect to the natural world. Because we're hitting nature's thresholds, we're hitting nature's limits with respect to water and crop yields and energy use and fossil fuels heating the atmosphere at the same time we're past global peak and running out of that. So we've got to change anyway. The people embracing the change earliest are the ones facing the most vigorous economies in 10, 20 years. The nation that leads in renewable energy will be the nation that leads the world 10, 20 years from now. And right now, based on current trends, that's going to be China. We're not in any way competing with China in terms of renewable energy. That's where it shows the proof that you have to choose between economy or energy. China has clearly chosen economy at the expense of everything else with 8% GDP growth a year as a mantra and yet 60% of the solar panels in the world are made in China. They are the most aggressive leaders in the renewable energy sector. So clearly those two are going hand in hand.

PD: Is your interest moving from cinema toward public policy?

JC: Not specifically. Look, I'm an artist. I'm just going to be a big mouth and blather my opinions around, as artists are wont to do. That's fine. In the particular case of "Avatar," I found there's a call to action and a sense of duty that's emerged from it. It wasn't my intention going into [the film] to do that. I figured I'd be on vacation right now. I figured I'd make my big statement with the movie and let everyone else sort out what to do. Turns out there aren't that many people figuring out what to do. The leaders have been scared off, people of conscience in our leadership in Washington have been scared off by the right and the fossil fuel lobbies. They won't even use the term "sustainability" or "climate change" in an energy bill, which is ludicrous on its face. It completely ignores the elephant in the room that we're all dealing with. The average American doesn't even believe climate change is real, they think it's all a hoax. Two years ago, 50% of Americans thought climate change was real and thought it was human caused. Now we're down to a third. That's the work of a very well-funded campaign to create a climate of denial in the media. You've got to work against that. Here's my philosophy in life: If there's a fire, you put it out. If there's a flood, you fill sandbags and you build a dike. You roll up your sleeves and you get to work. I think we're facing that kind of crisis and I'm not going to stand around and leave it to someone else to deal with it.

I tried [being a mogul]. It bores me. I don't really want to produce other people's movies. Because they're either grown-up filmmakers like Steven Soderbergh or Kathryn Bigelow that didn't really need me -- and I've produced both of them. It's fun to sit around with them and be collegial, but they don't need me. They can make the film without me. Or it's a new filmmaker starting out and I've got to hold their hand and lead them through the whole thing. I don't get anything out of it in either one of those configurations. I don't get anything out of putting my name on a movie as producer. It doesn't do anything for me. I make my own stuff. There are tons and tons of other things I'm interested in that have nothing to do with movies or are documentary projects. So I pick my feature film battles very carefully. They're going to be personal and they're going to take a lot of my energy. I'm not going to be some big production company and be Jerry Bruckheimer or something like that. It doesn't interest me.

PD: When you embark on your next film project, do you know what the challenge will be? Something on par with filming underwater for "The Abyss" or perfecting the performance capture technology in "Avatar"?

JC: Well you've already defined what the challenge will be on the next "Avatar" picture, which is to do what we did before at half the price and in half the time. Again, that's an impossible goal, we won't accomplish that, but if we can reduce by 25% in both categories, we'll have really accomplished something. We know our methodology works. We also know it took two years to come up with. It didn't even become efficient until the last two months of the production. So we were four years into a project before we had this machine running smoothly. So we take a snapshot of that moment in our production and say that's what we look like on Day 1, we're going to do better. Now, none of that has anything to do with coming up with a great story or great characters or great new settings and so on. That all is a given. That's not to say that it's done yet, it's a given that we have to do that. But for me, the technical challenge is in improving the process having proved that it works.

We created a broad canvas for the environment of film. That's not just on Pandora, but throughout the Alpha Centauri AB system. And we expand out across that system and incorporate more into the story – not necessarily in the second film, but more toward a third film. I've already announced this, so I might as well say it: Part of my focus in the second film is in creating a different environment – a different setting within Pandora. And I'm going to be focusing on the ocean on Pandora, which will be equally rich and diverse and crazy and imaginative, but it just won't be a rain forest. I'm not saying we won't see what we've already seen; we'll see more of that as well.

PD: Are you still an avid science-fiction reader?

JC: No, not so much an avid science-fiction reader anymore. I probably spend more time writing than reading science fiction. I find that science-fiction literature is so reactive to all the literature that's gone before that it's sort of like a fractal. It's gone to a level of detail that the average person could not possibly follow unless you're a fan. It iterates upon many prior generations of iterations. The literature now is so opaque to the average person that you couldn't take a science-fiction short story that's published now and turn it into a movie. There'd be way too much ground work you'd have to lay. It's OK to have detail and density, but if you rely on being a lifelong science-fiction fan to understand what the story is about, then it's not going to translate to a broader audience. Actually, literary science fiction is a very, very narrow band of the publishing business. I love science fiction in more of a pop-culture sense. And by the way, the line between science fiction and reality has blurred a lot in my life doing deep ocean expeditions and working on actual space projects and so on. So I tend to be more fascinated by the reality of the science-fiction world in which we live. I read real science voraciously. I read science magazines. Lay science magazines. I don't read science papers per se unless it's been sent to me by a friend in the science community that they're working on and is a subject that I'm conversant about. Like whether it's the thickness of ice on Europa. Something specific. And if I need clarification on something, I can call the author and ask them. But generally speaking, I read Scientific American and Discover and Popular Science and that sort of thing.

Fox to release 'Avatar: Special Edition'
Version to go into theaters worldwide Aug. 27
Source: Variety

Twentieth Century Fox is to release "Avatar: Special Edition" in theaters worldwide on Aug. 27 in a limited engagement and exclusively in Digital 3D and IMAX 3D, the studio announced Thursday.

The new version of the pic will include more than eight minutes of new footage.

"Audiences repeatedly told me they wanted more of Pandora, and wished they could have stayed there longer. So we're making that possible," the pic's helmer James Cameron said in a statement." 'Avatar: Special Edition' will be exclusively in 3D, and will have eight minutes of never before seen footage, including new creatures and action scenes."

The pic is the highest grossing film of all time, taking in more than $2.7 billion in worldwide box office.

I know it's been out for a while, but a coworker just informed me that the only special feature on the Avatar DVD is an advertisement for the special edition slated to come out soon.

Can anyone confirm this?

And if so, fuck.

Quote from: MacGuffin on July 08, 2010, 03:14:22 PM
Fox to release 'Avatar: Special Edition'

This will be the best 3D movie since Avatar.

'Avatar' Re-Release To Highlight Tsu'tey Death
James Cameron says nine minutes of deleted scenes will be added when the flick returns to theaters on August 27.
Source: MTV

Cameron told MTV News that moviegoers will check out nine minutes of unseen footage featuring life on Pandora. Although news of the re-release originally touted roughly eight minutes of deleted scenes, the director said he threw in an additional 60 seconds. The footage also includes an expanded version of the demise of Na'vi hunter Tsu'tey, who was killed during the climactic clash between the Pandora natives and the human army.

"There's a pretty powerful emotional scene at the end which is Tsu'tey's death ... which happens off-camera in the original release. [In the original film] he kind of falls off the back of the shuttle and that's the last that you see of him but here we follow through. We have this emotional scene with Jake [Sully] and Neytiri and some other Na'vi that gather around him in the forest," Cameron said. The director added that the decision to cut down on Tsu'tey's passing was initially met with resistance from his team.

"It's a funny thing because everybody that was working on the film, when I said I'm taking out Tsu'tey's death, they said, 'What? You can't do that!' They had all fallen in love with it [because] it's a pretty powerful moment," he said. "It's such an amazing accomplishment on [visual effects supervisor Timothy] Webber's part because the emotionality in the CG is really quite stunning."

Cameron said the additional "Avatar" scenes involve four major moments, each around a couple minutes long, that turn up in the movie after the human soldiers fly a chopper into the lush Pandora rainforest for the first time. The revamped flick will also introduce fans to a new element of the alien environment: a herd-like creature called a Sturmbeest.

"There's a big scene we called the Sturmbeest hunt," Cameron said. "The Sturmbeest is an animal that basically will be new to audiences because all of the Sturmbeest stuff got cut out. Once I took out the hunt, I took out the scene where I establish it [and] I took out the moment where it appears in the final battle. All that stuff's now been reinstated so there's gonna be a lot of Sturmbeest in your diet."

Cameron lamented that many scenes were originally nixed to either keep the up pace of the flick or to avoid derailing the budget of the technologically innovative enterprise. However, the director said scenes that were added to the re-release are big on nonstop action.

"We've got a scene where the Na'vi attack the bulldozers after the scene where they've mowed down the willow glade," Cameron said. "It's kind of [an] action scene plus the aftermath with the human troopers finding the bodies of their friends." He added that the scene provides added context for the subsequent conflict between the Na'vi and the humans.

"It's sort of like the stepping stone of the escalation to war. We sort of jump over all of that in the [original] film. [Human leaders Colonel Miles Quaritch] and [Parker] Selfridge just say, 'OK, alright, let's go take 'em out.' But this sort of shows that there are steps in the process."

Is this like once a month now, Avatar's marketing team will release an article emphasizing one of the deleted scenes to be included on a future version of the DVD? Boring.

'Avatar' DVD/BluRay Gets 3 Different Cuts, Feature-Length Making Of Doc, Family Friendly Audio Track & More

Christmas is about to get a whole lot more blue for "Avatar" fans (and a whole lot more green for James Cameron). 20th Century Fox has announced the details about what will be in the upcoming triple-disc DVD and BluRay release for the film, and if you want to experience every inch of Pandora, now might be the time to upgrade to Blu. The features on the BluRay are extensive. The first disc contains no less than three different cuts of the film --Original Theatrical Version, Special Edition Re-release and Collector's Extended cut --on top of offering the previously announced Earth set alternate opening. You have also have the option of playing the Family Audio Track during the Original and Special Edition cuts of the film that will remove all objectionable language so your little ones don't end up dropping some "Avatar" sized swear words. No mention if the worst word in the film, "unobtanium," will also be excised. The second disc contains a feature-length making-of documentary and 45 minutes of deleted scenes while the third disc offers up more production featurettes, the original 300 page screenplay, a Pandorapedia (giggle) and more. The DVD set is bare-bones by comparison, only offering the multiple cuts spread over two discs, the feature length documentary and deleted scenes. All of this will hit stores on November 16th to make sure it's on shelves before the biggest shopping weekend of the year, Thanksgiving and Black Friday. Oh yeah, if you want the 3D version, you're going to need to buy a 3D TV. No joke. No word yet on pricing.

AVATAR Extended Collection's Edition: 3-Disc Collector's Edition Blu-ray: Disc One · Original Theatrical Version · Special Edition Re-Release · Collector's Extended Cut 16 more minutes and exclusive alternate opening Family Audio Track (All Objectionable Language Removed) · Original Theatrical Release · Special Edition Re-release Disc Two · "Capturing Avatar" An in-depth feature length documentary with James Cameron, Jon Landau and cast and crew · Deleted Scenes –including over 45 minutes of new never-before-seen deleted scenes · Production Materials Disc Three · Open "Pandora's Box" and go deeper into the filmmaker process · Interactive Scene Deconstruction: Explore the various stages of production through 3 different viewing modes · Production Shorts: 17 featurettes covering performance capture, scoring the film, 3D fusion camera, stunts and much more · Avatar Archives including original scriptment, 300 page screenplay and the extensive Pandorapedia · BD-live Portal with additional bonus materials AVATAR Collector's Edition: 3-Disc Special Edition DVD: Disc One · Original Theatrical Version · Special Edition Re-release · Collector's Extended Cut 16 more minutes and exclusive alternate opening Disc Two · Original Theatrical Version · Special Edition Re-release · Collector's Extended Cut Disc Three · "Capturing Avatar" An in-depth feature length documentary with James Cameron, Jon Landau and cast and crew · Deleted Scenes including over 45 minutes of new never before seen deleted scenes

James Cameron confirms release dates for Avatar 2, 3 and 4
And announces a whole host of new co-writers
Source: Total Film

We recently learned that James Cameron had hired Josh Friedman to help work on the script for Avatar 2, an announcement that turned out to only be a fraction of the story, with Cameron now announcing new plans for Avatar 3 and 4!

It turns out that Cameron has enlisted a whole new batch of screenwriters to assist him with the screenplays for the sequels, which will stretch to include a fourth film.

Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver have now been brought on board alongside Shane Salerno to work on Avatar 3 and 4, the latter of which had previously been suggested to be a prequel.

"Building upon the world we created with Avatar has been a rare and incredibly rewarding experience," said Cameron.

"In writing the new films, I've come to realise that Avatar's world, story and characters have become even richer than I anticipated. It became apparent that two films would not be enough to capture everything I wanted to put on screen."

"And to help me continue to expand this universe, I'm pleased to bring aboard Amanda, Rick, Shane and Josh - all writers I've long admired -­ to join me in completing the films' screenplays."

Avatar 2 is now expected to arrive in December 2016, with Avatar 3 coming a year later, and a fourth film the year after that.

[soundcloud]https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/478-world-tree-center-12820[/soundcloud]


Chapo's new episode on Avatar is, no joke, the best analysis of this film that I've ever heard. Their take is that Avatar is one of the greatest and purest works of anti-colonialist & anti-imperialist fiction. Maybe one of their best episodes. I got chills. It's also pretty much as fearlessly earnest as the movie itself.

I haven't watched Avatar since 2009 because the 3D experience was magical and I don't want to experience the movie without it. But I loved it. Grand Hollywood.

I'm kinda the same, honestly. It was one of the best theatrical experiences I've ever had. I don't think I'll be able to resist rewatching this soon though.

Meant to post something after I saw the re-release. I still have my notes from afterwards, so here we go...

The remaster and variable framerate were incredible—standard 24 FPS most of the time with a higher rate for some sequences. It was noticeable but not distracting. Avatar is an immersive experience with no comparison. The world of the movie is simply real. Same applies to the Way of Water preview at the end.

There is a legitimate phenomenon where this movie is sort of sequestered in people's memories, because it feels like a dream. When you're watching Avatar, it's the realest thing ever, but when you exit that space you wonder if you just imagined the whole thing.

Now I shall do the unthinkable and defend the story of Avatar.

I know people like to smugly call this "Pocahontas in Space" or whatever, but that's a total misreading of what actually happens. I can't think of a more anti-colonialist movie. Sure, Jake Sully is a chosen one, and if you can't get past that I understand. But in all other respects, I find Avatar to be thematically unimpeachable. Jake only becomes one of them by totally and comprehensively discarding his previous culture, way of life, and even his human body. He doesn't come to their rescue so much as they convert and absorb him.

Jake Sully exerts no influence on the Na'vi's way of life. In fact, he can only succeed by completely surrendering to it. Just as Sigourney Weaver's previous peace efforts failed, with the English schools being shut down, Jake's peace efforts fail as well... because peace was never going to be possible.

Jake is not much of a savior at all—not conventionally. When he becomes the new alpha, we're meant to think he's going to win the war by sheer force. But it doesn't work! His strategy of uniting the tribes, his big idea, fails. It's a very Cameron idea that you can't truly win through violence and domination. Instead, it turns out that Jake can only make a difference through submission and sacrifice.

He links to the spirit tree, tells it everything he knows, and asks it to read Sigourney Weaver's memories to gain as much information as it can on the enemy. In this act, Jake obliterates all trace of allegiance to his previous culture. He has no use for it anymore except to help the Na'vi expel them from Pandora. We're not talking about the peaceful merging or even co-existence of two cultures. In fact, Avatar argues that the two societies are incompatible and can't co-exist, because one (the colonizers) is inherently destructive and exploitative. Jake has nothing of value to bring from his culture except military intel that can help betray it.

Near the end when Neytiri holds Jake's tiny little human body, he's just so small and frail and so profoundly at their mercy. The only path to redemption for Jake was complete submission to the Na'vi.