James Cameron's Avatar

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

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.

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.

__________________
R.I.P.

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

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.

The plot subject matter is not a national secret. It is an old project.

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.

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.

If I were skinnier I could fly. Damn straight.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I scoff at all Hitchcock films.

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

P.S. I don't scoff at this one, but I've seen it.

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

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.

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

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.