James Cameron's Avatar
 

Anyone interested in this? I think the release date has been put back, but it looks interesting, especially with Cameron helming.

http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/bl...tar-poster.jpg

[EDIT] Very good but fake fan made trailer below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGs3_1qKl34

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

That trailer is so fan-made, because there hasn't been an official trailer released yet. Even if the fan-made trailer is pretty cool. I'm pretty much looking forward to it though, because of how revolutionary that it's supposed to be with it's special effects. I'm really more impressed with how hyped it's gotten and there hasn't even been a trailer released for it yet. It's pretty impressive. My best guess for a trailer is that he's waiting for comic-con to show it. I still think he's cutting it pretty close for a December release date.

Oh well, the trailer sure suckered me in then.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I just checked, and it's official: the first 3-D footage of the movie will be premired at Comic-Con by Cameron. You had me excited when I clicked into this thread, too, because I thought they finally had released the teaser. It's sort of pointless to release a teaser now, with Avatar coming out in only 6 months. They should just release a full theatrical trailer.

Oh yeah. I've read every article about it in Total Film magazine, I've read the whole Wikipedia page on it. I don't think I've ever been so hyped about a movie.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Yeah, it's stunning to consider how little we have on this film. We're 6 months away from a $200 million movie which utilizes groundbreaking technology, and is being directed by James Cameron, and is a full decade since his last non-documentary film, Titanic, which shattered box office records...and we don't have a flippin' teaser yet. That's unheard of.

I don't mean this in a negative sense. The secrecy seems very deliberate...they're obviously going to completely bombard us in the months leading up to the release, I assume. It's just amazing how close we are to such a huge "event"-type film, with just a few scattered stills and rough plot details.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

He showed the first 14 minutes (I think that's how long it was) at an audience in Holland and it got a standing ovation.

Yeah that's because Cameron put drawing pins on the seats and itching powder in the popcorn;)

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Quite possible. :D

I have zero anticipation for this film.

So, you're just going to throw that out there and make us ask you why?

Yes why?

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Well, back in the pre-Net days, almost nobody had any idea what Close Encounters of the Third Kind was about. Sure, it had something to do with contact with aliens, but that was it, almost right up to the day of release.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I'm more excited about M. Night Shyamalan's nickelodeon one ...

Yeah, it is a bit dodgy how there is little to nothing on the film yet. But i'm still a bit confused by this whole 3D thing. I mean, apparently it's meant to be groundbreaking and something 'we've never ever seen before', but from my basic understanding of it, they are using the same technology as the one used for Beowolf, which wouldn't exactly make it that 'groundbreaking' now would it? I'm sure it's going to look pretty but really, is 3D really going to give it the heightened experience that Cameron seeks? Unless i've lost the plot and there is something else at play here?

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I don't think it's the same technology, exactly, though it's definitely similar. There's some sort of virtual camera that lets him "shoot" things in the digital world in real-time (or at least, that's what Cameron says). That, and the technology is supposed to be that much better and, I think, mixed with live action at points.

The 3D, as you mention, has been a big selling point. Cameron's said that most 3D films are too gimmicky, and he's convinced that a subtler approach will become the new standard. Who knows.

Anyway, I'm not really worried about the fact that we don't have anything yet...I'm more just intrigued by how unusual that is, and how tightly it's being kept under wraps. ComicCon is in just a couple weeks, though, and I assume the footage shown there will find its way out, either through a leak or some kind of official release. At least, I hope so. When it starts showing up on the web and in theaters, I imagine a lot of moviegoers will start wondering why they hadn't heard of it before.

I see. Well hopefully it turns out to be as good as it sounds. I still think that shooting in IMAX is the future, but hey, maybe Cameron really has found something special here.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I love James Cameron, he's made a handful of great movies.
But this whole secretive, GROUNDBREAKING Avatar talk is just ridiculous. Fanboys around the world are girrating in their seats just cuz Cameron says he's making another movie, and one that will "change how movies are made". pllease. its just buzz, since he's been out of the loop for so long.
I'm interested as much as everyone else, but not freakin praising this movie already and putting it on imaginary TOP TEN LISTS ALREADY. christ.
The teaser poster i saw a couple months ago, was really confusing/dissapointing too. Here we are, years in the making, breaththrough hype...and we get a pic of some person's blue face with dots in it, resembling a spfx guy dressed in blue with dots on the costume. seriously? am i wrong? the premise sounds good though..i'll give it a shot. Hopefully they don't delay it any further, cuz December feels right around the corner..

It's "buzz," but that doesn't mean there isn't anything to it, either. I'm sure everyone agrees that people putting it on any kind of list is silly, but I don't find the hype to be at all ridiculous, but that doesn't mean that the hype isn't somewhat warranted.

Cameron's track record shows that he consistently produces genuinely groundbreaking films, particularly in regards to visual effects. From the water effects in The Abyss, to Aliens, to the T-1000 in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and obviously Titanic. It sounds like a cliche, but the guy really does push the limits of the technology available to him. He knows a little something about groundbreaking effects, so when he says his next film will have them, I'm inclined to believe him. My opinion isn't changed by the fact that he hasn't made a film in awhile; I'm not sure why this would put him "out of the loop" or render his opinion of what constitutes amazing effects meaningless. And let's keep in mind that his last film broke scads of box office records and won Best Picture. It makes sense that his next non-documentary film, more than a decade later, would be received with great anticipation.

As for the poster: what were you expecting? A 3D poster of a giant, epic battlefield? Little people living inside it? It's a poster, it's not going to blow your mind. It's not supposed to.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Groundbreaking comments about his forthcoming film...again

Anticipation from millions of viewers...again

Come december the film will be #1 in the box office for months...again

Cameron will make sh*tloads of money, and everyone will be happy...again

Thought I'd paste this in so people can see what you're talking about. Funny...I kinda' like it.

http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-conte...vie_poster.jpg

i think once it comes out, it'll stay strong the first two weeks, but then it'll die down. the only thing going for this movie right now is its hype for "technology" and cuz james has his name plastered on it. People thinking this will be the next titanic, i doubt it.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Will go and see it when it comes out :yup:

That reminds me (a bit) of the video for Soft Cell's Tainted Love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuMsbOrDinY

Revolutionary my arse! :D

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Is that a slam or are you pimping your arse's qualities?

San Diego Comic-Con '09 - Avatar

I think James Cameron isn`t able to make a bad movie, even if he wants to.
Looking forward to be hypnotized and blown away by smart action - in 3 D! :cool:

http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:...tanic_ver2.jpg http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:...gement_day.jpg http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:...ruelies_se.jpg

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Piranha II is better than all three of those, Meat?

It's not better than Titanic and T2 isn't really bad, it just gets boring by the end. Otherwise, yeah, I agree with Meat. I'd throw in Aliens too.

In what country? :rotfl:

Towards the end of the Avatar panel at Comic-Con, James Cameron announced that 15 minutes of the film will be screened in IMAX 3D theaters and other select digital 3D theaters for free across the globe on August 21.

Just trying to poke a hole in his argument.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

This was the best thing I saw today at the con.

D-9 most likely would have topped it, but my pals really wanted to go back to the hotel...

You`ve almost got me, but now I´ve got it. That`s meant to be funny, right? Cause Titanic and T2 are ranked on the top of my favourite film list. Sorry that I did not catch it sooner, but I´m out of this humor-league since Kindergarten. :rolleyes:

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Well, Cameron screened his 25 minutes of footage at Comic Con, but we lowly MoFos still have nothing to go on.

That said, there does seem to be a very consistent pattern among the comments of those who've seen it: they all seem to agree that it really isn't anything revolutionary, but that it's still very impressive and definitely a big step forward for CGI and motion-capture technology.

Also, I posted this in The Shoutbox as well, but I I still can't overstate how weird it is that we don't even have a teaser yet. I think we're going to see a huge blitz sometime in early November, though. It's really going to surprise a lot of casual moviegoers. There'll be a lot of "why haven't I heard of this before?"

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

There is supposed to be a trailer released on the 21st, which Cameron is calling 'Avatar day'. There's also going to be 15 minutes of the movie screened that day at IMAX theaters and select theaters with 3-D screens on the 21st.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Ah yes, I forgot to mention that: apparently it's free, too. No idea how that's gonna work, but I'll certainly try to be there.

First Avatar Teaser Poster

New Theatrical Poster

CHUD has posted an image of what appears to be the official action figure for Sam Worthington's Avatar figure, a Na'vi-human hybrid that Worthington's character Jake possesses as he moves around the planet Pandora.

Source: Cinema Blend

I guarantee this movies a sure thing. Camerons non advertising of a movie he knows his diehard audience will see is smart. Rather than use the same tiredassed marketing strategy imo Camerons looking to make a real impression. Blair Witch was possibly the best promoted marketed movie ever so dont tell me theres not room for improvment. I believe also Camerons been critical of the industries marketing of film. He knows more than anybody else what it takes to make money. A constant returning audience for his film week after week, and not just opening weekend.

For the industry to survive they must revive the returning audience as the shine is off the star regarding "opening weekend is all" marketing. Titanic made steady money for a long damn time thanks to teenage girls + Leonardo DiCaprio. Take out Leo, and replace with 3D. I will see this, and if it somehows a bomb Id not feels as bad because it "had" to be seen. Its been a long damn time I was so decisive about an upcoming movie, and I aint hard to sell. For shame hollywood for shame!

Ticket Details Announced for Avatar Day on August 21st!

Details on how to get tickets to see 16 minutes of footage from James Cameron's Avatar have finally been uncovered thanks to the LA Times. Starting on Monday, August 17th at Noon PST on the official Avatar website - AvatarMovie.com - Fox will be giving away first-come, first-serve tickets for free. There will be two screenings on Friday, August 21st (one at 6:00PM, the other at 6:30PM) in over 100 IMAX 3D theaters around the world. We don't have exact details on which theaters will be involved, but it looks like it'll only be in IMAX, so you better find the nearest one now. These tickets will probably go very fast on Monday.

The Avatar preview on August 21st will be in 3D and include an introduction from James Cameron and 16 minutes of footage, some of which wasn't even shown during Comic-Con. It was originally announced that they would be showing 15 minutes, but that was probably an early estimate. We're guessing that they'll also show the new trailer which hits on the 21st as well (or you'll be able to catch that online or while you're at the theater anyway). So if you don't make it into one of these showings, don't worry, you'll still be able to get a glimpse at Avatar in the trailer. This sounds like it will be a once-in-a-lifetime event - so don't miss it!

Source: FirstShowing.net

First Look: Sam Worthington in the First Real Avatar Photo!

Although the trailer will be online in about a week (next Friday), Fox has released the first official production photo from James Cameron's Avatar featuring Sam Worthington and his Avatar (in the background). Thanks to SlashFilm for first discovering this, as it's a very big reveal. Those who were at Comic-Con and saw the footage (including the scene that this is from) know all about the Avatars, but for everyone else in the world, this is their first look at James Cameron's world and at least one of the creatures that you'll find on Pandora. Check out the first Avatar photo below!


Avatar is the story of an ex-Marine (Sam Worthington) who finds himself thrust into hostilities on an alien planet filled with exotic life forms. As an Avatar, a human mind 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. This is from a scene early on where Worthington enters a lab and meets his Avatar for the first time and goes through the procedure to integrate his mind into it.

Source: FirstShowing.net

Just can`t wait to see it.

Apple has starting promoting that it will debut the first trailer for James Cameron's Avatar on Thursday at 7am, a day before expected and a day earlier than the upcoming "Avatar Day" next Friday, when footage from the film will be screened for the public.

Source: Sci Fi Wire

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I want to go into this completely blind.

So whatever pictures and trailers pop up, I'm going to try my best to avoid them.

Anyone get tickets for Avatar Day?

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Well, the trailer's up, but it looks like it isn't loading! Way too much pent-up demand, I suppose. I'll be trying again in a little while.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Alternative link, courtesy of AICN's TalkBack, via Peter/OG-:

http://specials.divertissements.fr.m...r/default.aspx

Posted this in The Shoutbox as well: I'll reserve full judgment until I can get my hands on a really high-res version, but some of those shots looked awfully close to photorealistic. I think the technology probably doesn't constitute the remarkable leap forward we were hearing about, but it still looks like a big step. Excitement definitely still intact.

wow, I was not interested in this movie at all until I saw that. Looks amazing.

I didn't know anything about this, but after watching the trailer, I was looking around and this really struck me (from wikipedia):

Love the premise! Although you all probably know about this already. But not only does the film look interesting, I'm pretty excited about the premise, too.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I must resist.....

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I can't believe it! After watching the trailer, I'm even less bothered about this film than I was before. :rolleyes:

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

This movie is going to be amazing.

well I dont know not that impressed just saw the teaser trailer and to be honest looks like a little bit like star wars with all the effects and environments but this is just me maybe I need more proof.Plus there was so buzz about it that for a moment there I thought I was not going to watch a movie but I dont know maybe something on the next level however we will see :) it's too early to judge :)

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

The trailer looks stiff to me, even now.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I just watched the trailer. I am very impressed. This will deserve an Oscar. Is it possible this film will do better at the box office than The Dark Knight?

I don't know about Roger Rabbit, but I understand what you mean with Final Fantasy. Cinema Blend viewed the 15 minutes of Avatar today being that it was Avatar Day. The guy had this to say..

If Avatar really turns out to be as bad as the 15 minutes he viewed, I'm gonna be upset.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Looks a bit of a diversion from his past films, more of an organic feel. The space marines are back I see. :D

The work in Terminator 2 is on an entirely different level than what we saw in Willow. In Willow, most of what we see is morphing from one set of photos to another in a fixed location. In T2, the morphing involves an actual person, there's all sorts of movement while it's morphing, and at times it it is seamlessly attached to a human actor.

Also, please show me where he "took credit" for this. I don't recall any press junkets or behind-the-scenes documentaries where Cameron jumped up and down and said "I'm the only person who's ever done anything even remotely like this!" Directors tend to get most of the credit, but that doesn't mean they "take" it.

Again, show me how he "took the glory." And please explain why the fact that someone else found the Titanic somehow invalidates the creation of the film Titanic. The discovery of the ship helped with theories about how things went down, and allowed them to replicate certain rooms, but if anything that made his work on the film harder, as he suddenly had a more detailed and reliable history to (try to) match. Either way, they're two entirely separate events and the fact that Cameron is praised for Titanic is a reflection of the incredible skill and effort that went into it, none of which is even remotely minimized by who discovered the ship.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Er, no. Whether or not Avatar looks particularly great, or is a particularly great film remains to be seen, but there's simply no denying that it represents a new manner of filmmaking. Your examples are mind-bendingly goofy. Who Killed Roger Rabbit? required painstaking precision with no margin for error, where animation had to be settled on long in advance and physical actors were restricted so as not to interfere with the later stages of production. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and The Phantom Menace are simply CGI productions, overlayed on film.

Avatar is motion-capture based (if you wanted to mock it, you should've referenced Beowulf or something), for one, and it uses a "virtual" camera that can change the angle on its CGI in real-time (at least, from what I understand of the technology). This is simply unprecedented. Being able to make changes to CGI films without having to completely re-render or re-orchestrate a shot or scene is a big deal any way you look at it.

Make up your mind: either it's a stupid retread "cartoon" or you're concerned about the "true artists" getting credit. It can't be both.

Besides, if this is your real gripe, it applies to any film with significant special effects. Sometimes CGI creation is an art, and sometimes it's more of a skill. Are the CGI "artists" the ones thinking up these creatures, or are they duplicating something Cameron drew or orchestrated? The former is creative; the latter is not, and from what I understand, this is a world Cameron dreamt up.

By this logic, all CGI is bad because it'll look dated eventually.

Of course, Jurassic Park is 16 years old. The Abyss is about 20 years old, I believe. Neither of them looks crappy.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Can I just be the first to say that while it does look beautiful, at times, other times it doesn't and on the other aspects, this movie looks like crap?

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I'm holding out hope that the textures will look a little more detailed on the finished product, but we'll see. I think a huge part of the problem (though I don't think it looks bad at all) is how blue the Na'vi are. I think it'd all look a bit better if the colors were toned down a bit. I don't know how much of the "unrealistic" look is a result of the quality of the effects, and how much is simply our brains constantly reminding us that few things in reality are actually that colorful. I don't know if you'll ever make something that unusual look truly realistic, because there's not much in reality to compare it to to begin with.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Honestly, after all the hype, I'm not impressed. To me the graphical quality is only slightly above Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. I could still distinguish between practical and cg images. The general look reminds me of cut scenes from various PS2 to PS3 titles. The very end of the trailer with the two blue elf-like people falling into each other reminded me of the intro to FF8 especially. Also, the space marines reminded me of the cg Starship Troopers animated series. I just wonder how much thought went into the story, versus the supposedly "groundbreaking" technology.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Well, as far as we know we can still distinguish between the real images and the CGI. ;) If we couldn't tell the difference, we wouldn't know we couldn't tell the difference.

That said, I'll admit to being a little underwhelmed by the trailer. However I've also heard a lot of emphasis on the film's visual potency coming from he new type of subtler 3D that it's supposed to be seen with, so I'll hold off on anything definitive until then.

I do agree about that last shot, though.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I've seen the trailer a few times now and while it does get slightly better each time, it still doesn't really do anything for me. I hate trailers full of spoilers as much as the next guy, but a teaser trailer still needs something to tease you with.

Unless of course this was put together to be a technological showcase, in which case it fails somewhat by not being an awful lot better than what weve seen before. I'll give it more time obviously, but so far I've seen nothing as convincing as Davey Jones from the POTC sequels.

p.s. Comparisons with Delgo

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Avatar's trailer looks good. I hope this movie won't be over-hyped only because he made Titanic. It was a great movie. I'm hoping Avatar will be better.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

It amazes me.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

But you'll still watch it then? :rolleyes:

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Oh yeah, I'll watch it!
hee hee. of course.

Art begins with concepts.
Technique at achieving these concepts evolve.

Avatar trailer breaks Apple record

If you were eagerly awaiting the Avatar trailer last Thursday on the Apple Trailers website you will have noticed that the trailer didn’t appear straight away when the week long countdown reached zero. It took around 15 minutes before the trailer was actually available to download and stream.

From ComingSoon.net:

For anyone wondering the 1.7 million download record holder was Star Trek.

Source: Filmonic

Avatar Video Game Trailer & Toy Images

After the teaser trailer for Avatar premiered to a lot of fan debate a few days ago, we now also have the Avatar video game trailer for you, as well as a batch of images from the accompanying toy line.


Avatar Video Game

The video game of Avatar has been in the making for over two and a half years now, being developed right alongside the movie. Unlike most games based on upcoming movies (which are mostly just rushed to get it on the shelves when the movie comes out), the Avatar game was developed as an extension of the movie. The game has its own creatures, settings and weapons, some designed by Ubisoft (the game company) and some even by Weta (who’re doing the CGI for the movie). James Cameron has even revealed that some of things in the game he incorporated into the actual movie.

That’s certainly impressive to hear about a movie-based game…


Up until now we’ve only had a look at the Avatar game through various still images, which can only say so much about the game.

Take a look:


Avatar Toys

Along with the Avatar video game trailer, we also have a bunch of images of the Avatar action figures. We got a quick look at one of the toys early last month, but the image was swiftly pulled down by the studio. This wasn’t surprising, considering that at the time the toy was our first real insight into what the blue Na’vi aliens of Avatar look like, and toys don’t always show off a character in the best light.

Anyway, now we have a bunch of images, so check out a few of the Avatar toys below:


The Avatar video game is set to be released sometime on early November 24th, 2009, with the actual movie being released in 3D and regular theaters on December 18, 2009.

Source: Screenrant

Those are some of the gayest looking toys I've ever seen. They look like a Masai version of The Blue Man Group.

:rotfl:

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I doubt those toys will be sold out of every store come Christmas.

What Would James Cameron's Classic Characters Look Like In 'Avatar'?

Source: MTV

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! :eek:

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Hey, how come these photos look just as good as those in the new Avatar movie?!

Answer? As crap as the characters in Avatar look. Well, who'd have thunk it?

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3479/...de7f38ce07.jpg

i saw the trailer and i was amazed with the visuals but with regards to the story, i'm not yet sure. it's not enough that the movie works with spectacular visual effects. in the end, some people might overlook the beauty of it all if the story come across as weak and predictable. still, this movie is worth checking out.. :)

I think it's a pretty vasty overstatement to say that his career was "handed" to him by the effects company, for a few reasons. First, most of his films are well constructed far beyond their special effects; the first Terminator was his breakthrough film, and the special effects in it were hardly revolutionary.

Second, it's not as if the effects create themselves, and it's not as if the programmers have a tremendous hand in their design. Cameron is, from what I can tell, a pretty hands-on guy, and is very particular about his designs (I heard he designed basically all the creatures in Avatar, for example). If he's the one envisioning the effects, then he deserves a tremendous amount of credit even if he isn't the one actually using the computer program that constructs them.

Third, directors deserve credit for pushing new technologies. The get most of the praise when it works, but they also get most of the blame when it doesn't. That's only fair. When a director sets out on an ambitious project not knowing whether or not they can make it work, that's inherently commendable, because they're taking risks that ultimately benefit the entire industry.

I'm not sure I see why like Bob Ballard and getting media coverage for this makes Cameron a hack, or even unlikable. I'd be curious about this "raided by grave robbers" claim, though anyone with the means and desire to do something so elaborate probably didn't need an article about James Cameron to find out about the site.

Isn't the above a reason to like Cameron?

It's not really a matter of opinion, though. You can have the opinion that a movie is good or bad, but I'm not sure if you can really have an "opinion" that the movie's costs are greatly inflated. Either there is evidence to suggest this, or not.

Whatever you think of the trailer, Avatar is inarguably utilizing unprecedented technology, so I'm not sure why it would be hard to believe that it costs $200 million. Lots of films have cost around that amount. And the idea that this is the result of bad management seems pretty unlikely; Cameron's worked with massive budgets before, and people keep hiring him. People who, to have that kind of money, must have some idea how to invest. And by and large it seems that people who invest in his films keep getting a good return. So, either he manages these budgets quite well, or his films are good enough that they easily make up whatever they cost in budget overruns. Both equate to a job well done, from a financial perspective.

As for "padding the bill" -- I'm not even sure how this is supposed to work. Cameron can't inflate his own salary by ordering extra catering or anything, and accusations like this should really be based in some kind of evidence, rather than "wow, that's a lot of money, no way any movie would cost that much." Movies are crazy expensive, and when you think about all the things that go into a production of this size -- let alone one blazing a trail with a new technology -- it's really not hard to see why.

What movie was it, and how did you know "for a fact" that it didn't cost more? Or when you say "for a fact," do you just mean "it really doesn't look like it cost that much"?

I can't imagine what kind of "tax scam" you're referring to. I realize the tax code is very complicated, but I'm surprised at how easily people write things off as a "tax thing" or a "tax scam," as if you can explain away anything with it.

You didn't say the word "stupid," but calling it a "cartoon" seems pretty derisive. As does suggesting the money spent is part of some scam.

Making a movie completely dependent on CGI isn't a waste of time to most of us. If you like it in tiny doses, more power to you, but that's merely your opinion. Some movies call for a lot of effects, and some don't. At this time, and with a completely fictionalized world, I think it makes sense. I'm glad that guys like Cameron and Robert Zemeckis are exploring this technology.


Wow. Jurassic Park is stunning, and holds up even today. I think you might honestly be the first person I've ever encountered who feels otherwise.

But really, how many classic films have characters in fake cars that are clearly in front of screens? How far do we take this? Anything other than just people standing around has the potential to look dated, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. We're all capable of judging a film based on its time of creation and appreciating the ways it pioneered a given technology.

Really, this line of thinking logically ends in the abandonment of all special effects -- even rudimentary ones. It is only through using them like this that they have a chance to become better down the line. Wanting it to be otherwise is to want a logical impossibility: you can't have technological progress that doesn't simultaneously cast previous technology in a harsher light.

I'm not sure I see the difference. Both are dumping actors into CGI sets and worlds because it gives them more control. The only difference is that one's doing it against a green screen, and the other's doing it with motion capture.

I'm glad we agree on what he does for the industry. I think that part is very important.

That said, I don't agree that his films won't last. They already have. The Terminator is 25 years old. Aliens is 23. The latter is widely considered one of the better sci-fi/horror films ever made. Heck, Titanic is already 12 years old, and while I'm not a huge fan, it's clearly going to last a very, very long time. Both Terminator films are on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Thrills list.

As for whether or not he's a "poet" -- well, I dunno. I don't think Lucas is much of a poet, either, and I can't imagine how one could suggest that Cameron is too dependent on effects, but Lucas isn't. Regardless, I don't think a director has to be a poet to make some really damn good films that stand the test of time.

Avatar footage appears in Japanese Panasonic commercial

A while back 20th Century Fox and Panasonic decided to team up in an effort to get the 3D revolution rolling. Panasonic have been providing hardware to James Cameron throughout the production of Avatar, and their first 3D TVs are expected to be heavily promoted with visuals from the movie alongside endorsements from Cameron himself.

The TV commercial below bears the first fruits of this 3D partnership as we get a glimpse at some new footage from Avatar while Panasonic advertise one of their TVs.


Source: Filmonic

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Just for the record, I am in the opinion I can have an opinion on anything.


This is a great vid that gives a fast history of visual FX.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP_hA..._embedded#t=25


I personally prefer the use of high detail “real” models (hey, they’re just miniature sets) – as to CGI. Although, I am going to begin making a study of digital animation softwares, because I can do some things cheaper that way.

Movies like The Fountain and Watchmen make good use of visual fx. I worry; however, CGI is becoming way to “easy” a path for many. It may ruin The Wolfman - which has a CGI wiz at the helm (JJ). It certainly has ruined many other films. Or should I say vids? Film is dying too, with the rise of the RED ONE and other high end HD toasters.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

PS
Heavy use of techno gimics is not fim making and CGI are cartoons (fact). What value a cartoon has is subjective.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

There is nothing about animation that makes it less of a film. Nothing at all. Finding Nemo is art. Up is art. The Lord of the Rings is art, even when the screen is filled with CGI. You can think more or less of the value of CGI, but to suggest that it is somehow an inherently lesser form of art based on this doesn't make sense, to my mind.

Given that none of us have seen Avatar, calling it "some generic and cliché quasi social commentary sci-fi drivel he belched up on a napkin" is almost completely speculation, and the fact that you're willing to draw such specific conclusions with such little information doesn't speak well as to your objectivity in the matter. Granted, if I had to guess I'd say the story will indeed be some generic social commentary, and Cameron has a nihilistic streak that I find pretty distasteful and repetitive (and dishonest, for that matter). But we don't get to broadly criticize things we know nothing about, either.

Re: "breakthrough" CGI and cartoons. I'm not sure how this makes sense at all. You seem to be implying that, because hand-drawn animation can depict the same sorts of unrealistic events as CGI, that the two are the same. This isn't true. You may not find CGI to be terribly realistic looking, but the idea that it is more realistic looking than animation is indisputable. So is the idea that it is more realistic looking now than it was a decade ago.

And let's keep something else in mind: you don't actually know how good all CGI is, because you've almost certainly overlooked it. Many films have made subtle use of it for backgrounds, creating larger crowds, etc. Statistically speaking, if you've watched even a handful of films released in the last 5-6 years, you've probably seen CGI on screen that you had no idea was CGI, which more or less invalidates many of the blanket statements you're making about it. You say you can always spot it, but how would you know? If you don't notice it, you don't know that you don't notice it.

But, as you say, everyone has their own opinions. The criticial and viewer-based consensus is that both Aliens and Terminator 2 have withstood the test of time thus far, and are both considerable achievements even outside of their effects. You feel otherwise, but that is an extremely unusual opinion. This is to say nothing of the idea that Jurassic Park was not a visual marvel; that opinion is pretty much unheard of. I don't think I've ever heard the sentiment before, and I've been running a movie message board for a decade!

Regarding the rest of the post: it's really each to point to something like Superman Returns, but nobody's pretending it has deep cultural value, or that the CGI always looks entirely believable there. This discussion isn't about whether or not CGI always looks good, or whether or not CGI is ever used as a crutch. Clearly, sometimes it is, and sometimes it doesn't look so hot. But you're claiming a lot more than that: you're criticizing it altogether, which means the only relevant examples of CGI are the ones in which it is used the best.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

It's such an old project that it's almost certainly undergone revisions. Fact is, we haven't seen it. We have vague plot synopses from awhile back. That isn't even remotely enough to issue some kind of blanket judgment, particularly given that Cameron's films have, in the past, undergone a bit of a dillution from what he writes (and even what he shoots) to what ends up on screen. The Abyss is a great example; it excludes most of its original moral and is a far better film for it.

I'm sorry that you're offended, but, well...it's ridiculous that you'd be offended. The idea that you have some superhuman ability to spot CGI, and have never, ever failed to notice its usage at any point, is completely implausible. Again, you can't know what CGI you've missed, by definition.

You offered many opinions, yes. And some of them are opinions of the sort that have no right or wrong answer (though such overwhelming opinion in the opposite direction would, I hope, give one pause). That said, not everything you said is devoid of objectivity. The idea that all CGI boils down to the same thing as Loony Tunes because it is not technically happening on screen is quite obviously absurd.

Realism is not binary, as you're suggesting. Jurassic Park looks closer to reality than Bugs Bunny, which in turn looks closer to reality than a crayon drawing from a four-year-old. I'm not sure how this is even debatable.

I'm also not sure how relevant it is. Why would something have to be completely indistinguishable from reality to have artistic value, or be part of an entertaining, meaningful film? How many sculptures feature unrealistic proportions? How many paintings exaggerate or emphasize? The raw photorealism of CGI is a technical matter more than artistic one. Art can exist even in films with thoroughly unconvincing effects.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I am very familiar with the use of CGI in film. I make a special note of directors who use it to a minimal extent to clean up or dress their sets and those who use it to an extreme.

See, the funny thing is, I almost completely agree with the eight things you've laid out above; I just don't agree with the conclusions that are drawn as a result.

For example, that because Cameron self-promotes (especially so? I'm not sure how one would even measure such a thing) and uses CGI in significant ways, that this somehow makes him a "hack," or implies that he neglects other aspects of filmmaking. That, to me, is a non-sequitur, and not one that I find borne out when I watch his films. Terminator 2 certainly dwells on meaningful, human themes. They're approached pessimistically, but in this context that hardly matters.

I also agree that CGI is the equivalent of a "drawing," and like a drawing, it can look awfully close to the thing it is depicting. But, again, I disagree with taking this obvious fact, and using it to jump to the conclusion that the use of such CGI somehow renders that portion of the film laughable, or impossible to take seriously. You seem to imply (if not say outright) in point #6 that CGI and other drawings, modelings, etc., "can be powerful emotional methods of moving the viewer." Yet I feel almost all of your posts preceding this last one have suggested the opposite. Perhaps you were overstaing the case for effect, but I've been taking you literally.

Re: Finding Nemo. I admire the voicework, but the visuals are gorgeous, and some of the sea life (terrain and plants, mainly) is, if not photo-realistic, certainly approaching it. The writing and performanecs are and always will be more important, but the effects work is lovely, and an important part of the film.

There's something else that needs to be considered here, too: photo-realistic CGI is going to be achieved at some point. But it won't happen without the gradual improvement we're seeing now. And when it does improve, we'll simply have to judge each past effect through the prism of its own time. Surely this isn't a real problem. Do you scoff at a Hitchcock film when someone gets in a pretend car and mimes driving while a projection of the road sits behind them? Does it ruin older films for you when you see an unconvincing mask, or mediocre makeup on some movie monster? Isn't anything other than two people acting (and on location) subject to becoming dated in some way?

Re: name calling. I have not at any point speculated about your level of knowledge in regards to post production or the film industry in general. Not one whit. The only assumptions I'm making are those that apply to, well, everybody. The fact that you've apparently spent so much time watching film only makes me more certain that you've seen CGI without realizing it. This doesn't make you "ignorant," it makes you human. It's no more a comment on your expertise than saying someone can't fly is a commentary on their weight.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

If I were skinnier I could fly. Damn straight.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I scoff at all Hitchcock films.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Which ones do you scoff at which you haven't seen? Everybody: show of hands.

http://www.taschen.com/media/images/...5_id_57566.jpg P.S. I don't scoff at this one, but I've seen it.

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

Not saying that your opinion is irrelevant or that you are wrong (opinions can not be wrong) but I am a bit confused. Point 5 and point 6 contradict eachother. In point 5 you express that there hasn't been anything realistic to date; incurring that it may one day be possible. Yet, in point 6 you specifically state that it can never be replicated.
On another note, i seems to me that you may be insinuating that just because it a certain instance of CG was miused/used poorly (ie; to draw in crowds/not add to the actual content of the film) that it was a waste of time. The same might be said of Jaws. Look back on it now and it's a piss poor rendition of a shark, but completely necessary as far as I'm concerned. Film is in constant demand to change and flux because of the criticisms of the viewers. There MUST be

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

trial and error. "A failure is a man who has blundered but is not capable of cashing in on the experience." (Elbert Hubbard) Verily, it's in the hands of each artist. CG is a tool, you said so yourself. Tools are only as good as the person who uses them. I don't know how to carve wood. It doesn't mean that the tools I am using are irrelevant. A master craftsmen can do a lost more even with a simple tool. CG is still in it's early stages if you think about it. It takes time, and trail and error to perfect something that humanity has had so little contact with. I mean, it's only come about in the last 100 years. So, for anyone to say anything is impossible seems a bit vague and to criticize CG on such broad terms even more so. Accordingly, I am surprised to find that ppl, specifically directors, are capapble of changing styles with little or no warning. Even James Cameron (as unlikely as that is), but who knows? maybe Michael bay will stop blowing sh*#t up... ok now I'm being silly. But, I do think it's kinda harsh to rate something so poorly that you haven't even seen.:(

Sorry for the double post btw, my two yr. old niece got ahold of the keyboard when I took a potty break.:o

Why is someone sticking their finger out of her mouth? ;)

Second Avatar Trailer Coming…Soon

In what has to be the most hyped movie in history, 20th Century Fox is giving the world a heads-up that a new trailer for Avatar “could be coming soon.” The great guys at Cinema Blend pointed to a story by Market Saw, where one of their guys talked to another guy heavily involved in Avatar’s propaganda promotional campaign.

And what will these new trailers and spots include, exactly? According to the source, we will hear “more than 3 lines of dialog” and Stephen Lang, Sigourney Weaver and the Na’vi will be of greater focus, as will the planet Pandora’s nightlife. Also included will be glimpses of Earth in the future and in one trailer, labeled the “Story Trailer”, there will be attention given to the “incredible performance that Sam Worthington gives as Jake.”

Later on in the super-secret interview (most likely held on untraceable cell phones) the source adds:

Well thanks a lot for nothing, Mr. Super-Secret Source! He sounds like one of those typical Hollywood producers that try to assure you their movie is going to be ridiculously awesome, but when the footage actually comes out - it’s just ridiculous. Let’s just recap what has happened up to this point in the promotional life of the $234 million dollar Avatar project:

First, James Cameron previewed 24 minutes of Avatar footage to a group of select critics and movie news sites in June, six months before the film is to be released. It was apparently well-received because the web was filled for days after with the worshipful ramblings of bloggers and critics alike.

Next came Comic-Con in July, along with thousands of lucky Hall H attendees, got to watch 25 minutes of footage from Avatar. Soon after, Fox announced an official “Avatar Day” on August 21st , where they showed (for free!) 15 minutes of extended footage from the movie in 3-D at various IMAX theaters. The arguably underwhelming trailer was also released online that same day.

Since then, several pictures of toys, interviews, and artwork from the film have come out. The tickets have even gone on sale three and a half months before the released date! Most recently 3 minutes of video game footage was released and it looks pretty good.

Avatar reaches out and grabs you in (IMAX and regular) 3D on December 18th, 2009.

Source: Screenrant

Avatar producer hints at sequel direction

We haven’t heard or seen much from Avatar since Avatar Day back in August when select members of the public were treated to 15 minutes of footage, and we got our first glimpse at a trailer. However, there’s less than 3 months left to go before Avatar hits our screens so 20th Century Fox will probably be gearing up the marketing blitz. If all the hype and marketing pays off Avatar could be a big earner for Fox, and they will no doubt want a sequel. James Cameron seems keen on an Avatar 2, and now producer Jon Landau has dropped a small hint at what we could see:

From /Film:

Source: Filmonic

Re: James Cameron's Avatar
 

I'm sorry, but this really is the gayest looking film in years. I just can't believe that people have seen these images (and others) of the film and yet are still interested. :confused: