The photo-real digital film is 20% live-action with humans shot on location and 80% live-action mixed with CG elements. "It's a CG film with live-action in it,"...says VFX demigod Rob Legato in THIS VARIETY ARTICLE. The piece goes on to discuss the film's budget (now abetween $250-300 million) and running time, as well as the machinations surrounding delays in its release. Also mentioned are how much money Fox threw at AVATAR's pre-production tech development. It's an interesting piece, which also talks a bit about Fincher's efforts to trim BENJAMIN BUTTON's running time, and Spike Jonze's tribulations with WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:43 a.m. CST
NOW! Please James let us take a peek at your world.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:43 a.m. CST
I'd like to see somthing...ANYthing from this film. Artwork, production stills, an interview... anything. I still don't really know what the hell it is.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:44 a.m. CST
by lex romero
Maybe I'm being stupid but could someone explain to me why it's more expensive to have some guys at a computer make CG stuff on screen than it is for "realworld" fx?
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:44 a.m. CST
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:46 a.m. CST
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:46 a.m. CST
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:47 a.m. CST
I'm drunk and I'm an idiot.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:49 a.m. CST
If Cameron was doing this completely live action it would probably cost him $1 billion to put it together! CG is extremely cheap in comparison to practical effects of the same scale. Of course, what Cameron is doing isn't any old CG effects movie, it's new techniques.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:51 a.m. CST
Fuck the hype this thing is getting. Look what such overt hype did to my beloved Star Wars franchise. The fans (NOT Lucas) destroyed it by building it up with unrealistic expectations. I don't know why all these idiots are showering Avatar with all this praise like it's going to be the Second Coming, and the fucking thing hasn't even entered principle photography yet. I predict an epic backlash is on the way.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:58 a.m. CST
by 420 Boylston St
Someone here has Jim's script and read it. Could you spill the beans on the idea and send me the script? I would love to read it.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:59 a.m. CST
I'm not being cynical, I just need one REAL fucking reason to be excited. I know who Cameron is. I see the bloated budget tag. If there was actually some information/pictures/ANYTHING to get me excited for this movie, that'd be nice.
Sept. 5, 2008, 10:05 a.m. CST
Battle Angel.<p> Not that I think Avatar is going to be bad.<br> Just think I'll enjoy Battle Angel more.
Sept. 5, 2008, 10:21 a.m. CST
The man is a legend
Sept. 5, 2008, 10:28 a.m. CST
by Rommel Catuncan
"Intense. James is a pash'nit and dedicated directah. If ya goin toe ta toe wif im ya bettah ave ya fucken game on. Ya goin toe ta toe wif tha fucken King of tha World yeah? It's not fa pansies. We want a movie that kicks ya in the balls yeah?" <P> Okay he didn't say that.
Sept. 5, 2008, 10:54 a.m. CST
After Titanic I imagine Cameron gets to be carried around the Fox offices by servants. Does Tom Rothman have to kiss Cameron's ring? I hope so.
Sept. 5, 2008, 11:13 a.m. CST
That video at the bottom reminds me of home. We raped their horses and rode off on their women!
Sept. 5, 2008, 11:27 a.m. CST
Holy shit thats a lot of money. Lately movie budgets have been so overblown (look at Pirates 3 and Spiderman 3, no I'm not comparing them to Avatar, because Avatar will be better and they are shit, but they both cost above 200). Still I can't wait for this one. And James Cameron has the Sci-Fi scene locked (not George Lucas...P.S. Star Wars Saga sucks, Kevin Smith and all you fat fanboys can go choke on a lightsaber dildo).
Sept. 5, 2008, 11:40 a.m. CST
by Nice Marmot
And then doesn't make TINTIN at all.
Sept. 5, 2008, 11:50 a.m. CST
Sept. 5, 2008, 11:51 a.m. CST
he doesn't need the money so he's 100% artistic of the project. The studios who are investing in this don't give a flying fuck about that, and are in business solely to make money. Cameron's trying to breath new life into cinema by showing you things impossible for you to see at home. Which is smart. If you missed Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D, then you fucked up. Because you won't be able to get the effect at home. Same with Deep Sea 3D..etc. Everything is so fucking expensive because every person involved HAS to make their greedy cut. Business is based on percentages and that is the minimum they shoot for. These CGI dudes charge so much. But so does everyone else. Prop dudes, set people, caterers, editors, actors, casting agencies, etc. Because they can. They see an opportunity and rape it blind. All facets of life are like that. But a driver delivering food full-time for the homeless for a non-profit organization GROSSES $20-25K a year tops. Our society is totally fucked in the head.
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:08 p.m. CST
What's your deal, man? Are you the ultimate Cameron fanboy? "AVATAR will blow the original STAR WARS out of the water, jaws-on-floors wise". Jesus. Hey, does anyone remember when some exec said about Cloverfield, "We've made our Star Wars"?" Yeah...
Yeah, how many 3D cinemas will they want worldwide before they feel it is "safe" to release Avatar? It could be a long wait indeed. <P> All these movies sound interesting though. I hope "Where the Wild Things Are" doesn't turn into a mess because they worried so much about who it would "play" to.
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:17 p.m. CST
$350-$400m. also, that martini ranch thing is terrible. I'm glad I got to see it though. thanks.
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:18 p.m. CST
by Mel Gibsteinberg
Pretty entertaining video, you can clearly see references that Cameron used in Terminator and Aliens later on. But what's with the end? <P> What, was he trying to say "oooh, see, I have made a cliff hanger, cause, a-heh, uhh, ya see, the guy is "HANGING" from a cliff, getit getit getit, I AM KING OF THE WORLD!" <P> What Cameron considers, artistic, I have to say is sometimes just lame. This dude is brilliant auteur of action/sci-fi/blockbuster entertainment. But is it really arthouse or elevated cinema? Don't get me wrong, he is not just a glorified Bay, but he is hardly Kubrick either.
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:25 p.m. CST
CAMERON'S NEW CASH COW :_
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:28 p.m. CST
by frank cotton
but seriously, 300,000,000.00 dollars? i have to agree with DIRTSANDWICH - fucked in the head. do we really need films costing more than a quarter of a BILLION dollars?
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:36 p.m. CST
It may be the case that what he is doing is going to be new, but newness doesn't have to equal a bloated budget. CGI right now, even for 3D movies, is to the popint that it can be done relatively inexpensively. I mean serious, if he had gone to Pixar and said, hey, I wanna do something new and amazing, wanna help me, Pixar probably wouldn't have turned him down, and the movie wouldn't have cost more than 100M. There is 0 reason for a CGI movie to cost that much.<br><br>It may be the case that Cameron is so full of himself that he will order full on 10 minute scenes completely rendered and then pick little snippets of them or send them back to be completely redone over and over and over again, costing the studio a fortune, rather than figuring everything out beforehand like Pixar. But hey, He's James Cameron.
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:39 p.m. CST
by Mel Gibsteinberg
Who has gotten bored with CGI. I know these "advances" are all so mind-numbingly awesome, and the technology is so incredible that I am reduced to a mumbling, drooling, pants crapper, after witnessing such cum inducing amazement. <P>BUT somehow I am no longer awed by some epic shot of CGI, no matter how photo real it is. I get it, its cool looking, but its just another form of animation to me. Have we learned nothing from the likes of Iron Man and Hellboy, which is to say, when you combine the practical with the CGI, you get an experience of pure movie going bliss. Because when you watch it, you know that real craftsmanship went into the building of the sets, the costumes, the props, the models, etc. <P>I'm sure CGI artists pull their hair out when jerks like me say this, but I can't help it, CGI for CGI sake just starts to bore me. <P>Davy Jones (dare I say it) got boring, I preferred the live action acting of Geoffrey Rush. CGI Hulk and Kong aren't as interesting to me as watching Rick Baker's work in Hellboy or even crappy Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes. The imperfection and spontaneity of the human performance and work can't be duplicated, not even with mo-cap. <P>So call me cautiously cynical over Avatar. Who knows, that's probably a good thing.
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:42 p.m. CST
The main eason why CG Animation costs so much is that it takes a Renderfarm, or a number of High end multiple core Workstation computers, working together in tandem to Render the actual Characters, Objects and Enviroments in each feature. In addition, the studio creating the Movie must either create their own rendering software (which could take millions to create) or license the technology from another studio (which you would have to pay to use the tech, as well as royalties once the movie makes money.) Add those factors to the already expensive nature of film making, Voice Actors, Studio time for voice recording, marketing, etc.... Costs have lowered significantly over the past few years, but what Cameron and crew are doing is near photorealistic computer animation, which means more rendering and in effect, more money.
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:45 p.m. CST
Yes, you're the only one. Computer animation stil has yet to cross Uncanny Valley. If you don't know what that is, google is your friend. Once we eclipse that threshold, we'll see how tired people are of it...
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:53 p.m. CST
I cannot imagine any studio despite camerons legendary volcanic wrath not putting its foot down. there are lot of people on this site who hate the fact studios make movies to make money. money means profit. In the face of world wide recession a 1.4 billion dollar movie will be halted. This film will be lucky if it doesnt get shut down.
Sept. 5, 2008, 12:55 p.m. CST
Iron Man had the most seamless digital to organic effects I've seen in recent memory. I honestly could rarely tell when the suit was CG or real.
Sept. 5, 2008, 1:12 p.m. CST
by Mel Gibsteinberg
It isn't revulsion with CGI, that might be when a movie uses serious CGI to augment someone in a creepy, nearly realistic manner. <P>I Robot didn't creep me out, neither did I AM LEGEND, they bored me with their worthless CGI, when you could have used actual actors, extras, or radio controlled props. How much creepier could I AM LEGEND have been with actual people in disturbing make up? Maybe that's a bad example cause we all agree that CGI was crap, but even the best CGI out there, the Lucas variety. Look its cool, but when there is nothing but that on the screen, it gets boring. Thats all.
Sept. 5, 2008, 1:18 p.m. CST
Hallmark charges $4 for a retarded greeting card. Hardly anything went into it. But I can buy a Sunday paper fucking packed with information, ads, comics, articles, and news for half the price. A a lot more material to produce it. Hallmark asks that price because they can. Our lame society lets shit like this exist. Same thing with actors. Tom Hanks is receiving between 29-49 million for Angels and Demons. He got 25 mil for Da Vinci Code. Carrey got 39 mil for cable guy. All of these are a few months of shooting. Nobody is worth that, I don't care who you are. This is why popcorn costs .25 cents to produce and is $5.50. The production company wants 60-70% of the ticket sales to make their money back from getting raped by the actors and everyone else. It starts at the top and trickles down to the customers.
Sept. 5, 2008, 1:32 p.m. CST
by Kentucky Colonel
Gimme a "Dog Day Afternoon" anytime over a P.O.S like "Clone Wars"....which I wouldn't watch even if I worked at the multiplex.
Sept. 5, 2008, 1:34 p.m. CST
Sept. 5, 2008, 1:36 p.m. CST
Sept. 5, 2008, 1:51 p.m. CST
The reason the movie is hyped is because the man has a perfect track record (Titanic haters be damned). IF there's any one director who is garunteed to make a masterpiece epic, it's cameron.
Sept. 5, 2008, 1:54 p.m. CST
"This is shaping up to be the mother of all bombs." I mean, that's a bit unwarranted. Delays and lack of a trailer/pictures for a movie of this magnitude that's a year and a half away... I think you're being a bit dramatic. Still, I don't understand the hype until I see something.
Sept. 5, 2008, 1:56 p.m. CST
By the time this comes out there should be at least 1000 3d theatres, and I'm willing to bet this will be sold out at all of them. Couple that with higher ticket prices at these theaters, and people coming back for repeat showings if its as good as people say it'll be, and it could be huge.
Sept. 5, 2008, 1:57 p.m. CST
... on this movie? Stay tuned!!!
Sept. 5, 2008, 2 p.m. CST
Same was said about "Titanic", not that I like that movie or anything, it wasn't my cup of tea, but it was finely made. A Cameron sci-fi film should be much anticipated, only young/dumb people (which usually goes hand-in-hand, I used to be one!) are dissing this guy. Go watch Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens and The Abyss (directors' cut) and come back with that shit. "Fuck you, stupid!"
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:06 p.m. CST
by Mel Gibsteinberg
I really like a lot of Cameron's work, but you have to admit that he tends to do pretty heady, serious, stuff when it comes to his sci-fi (Aliens, Terminator, Abyss) and that is not necessarily an easy sell for the average movie goer. <P>You could say that TDK was pretty serious, and it still made a bundle, but c'mon, that was a known property. Avatar is unknown (THANK GOD, FINALLY MORE ORIGINALITY) but its still risk.
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:09 p.m. CST
It really is quite good and no doubt its changed alot, and someone asked about Battle Angel, hes apparently starting pre-production and releasing that after AVATAR, which is going to cum on your eyeballs
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:12 p.m. CST
Why can't this be coming out already!!!!! There's such a lack of quality sci-fi movies, this is all I have to hold on to.
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:13 p.m. CST
oops, that was species-est of me.<br> I meant these non-terrans<br> Anyway do these guys have that backwards knee thing going on?
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:16 p.m. CST
by Mel Gibsteinberg
Great name by the way, hey I'd love to take a look at the scriptment, how do I get it sir?
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:16 p.m. CST
http://tinyurl.com/6mkhef and the enviroment angle
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:17 p.m. CST
I'm just as excited about James Cameron's Avatar as anyone else... ...BUT... ...300 million dollars? That is way too much to have spent on this film. It will be very hard for Cameron to make a profit on this. Titanic was one thing. This is something else. I really can't see this film making back all of its money. That doesn't mean its not going to be good but was it worth it?
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:20 p.m. CST
Much Like Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro, Cameron has a shitload of hands on special effects experience. They know how to direct a special effects department. He (should) know how to squeeze every penny and elegantly cut corners to make it look like it's worth even more than $300 Mil. Look at what happened with the Golden Compass and Superman Returns. Two directors who weren't special effects geeks that ended up with hugely expensive productions that really shouldn't have needed to be.
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:23 p.m. CST
I got it of an AVATAR fan site a couple of years back, could be a fake of course, but I got the same one again of someone on IMdb, a few weeks ago. Email firstname.lastname@example.org if anybody wants it
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:26 p.m. CST
get da fuck out, james.. what the movie really about? <P> you playin' <P> c'mon james.
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:45 p.m. CST
by Karl Hungus
...how sexy Kathryn Bigelow is in it. Sidebar: Weird how some music video directors go on to be good feature directors but the opposite is never true.
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:52 p.m. CST
I want some of that weed. Although I think you should at least Wiki Avatar if you really think thats just the story line
Sept. 5, 2008, 2:53 p.m. CST
This is kind of a sad story, but when I was a kid growing up, I bought the Martini Ranch CD only because it was Bill Paxton's group. I soooo remember that video. Brings back a LOT of memories, lol. I had forgotten that Paul Reiser was in the video. Anyway, you gotta love You Tube...
Sept. 5, 2008, 3:09 p.m. CST
with the fusion cameras (dual lenses) in HD digital. Right there the cost will be higher. Also converted to IMAX too, $$$. Break through f/x with realistic performance capture. You probably won't even be able to tell the difference between live action and cgi. Journey/Center/Earth was 50-60 mil and 3D digital. Not HD and not in IMAX either but it looked good. That was cgi mixed with live action but no performance capture. And a much shorter film. That was low budget and it looked cool. Like CharyouTree said, Avatar will cum on your eyeballs. The sound f/x will be the best, and I'm sure James Horner will provide the score. So it's gonna blow its wad right in your ear canal too. Drop what you think cgi looks like. It won't be like that. So you can't argue about anything negative about Avatar's cgi. You haven't seen this type yet. Another reason shit cost so much is because the TV studios charge an ass load to put a commercial on. Think JC have a teaser for the next Superbowl, at 3 mil a half minute? Yep! There goes popcorn up to $5.75 for a small.
Sept. 5, 2008, 3:24 p.m. CST
There are lot of good cgi flicks out there, but it hasn't lived up to the hype. Most cgi is not as realistic looking as its hype up to be and looks cartoonish. It takes away from the movie. Scenes in I am Legend were just horrible. Yoda jumping around like sonic the hedgehog sucked balls. I love the old sinbad movies with the crappy claymation effects and the original star trek shows where you could see the string the ships were dangling from, but in those cases I had low expectations and was able to appreciate the cheesiness for some reason, but i've been expectating so much from cgi and i'm just not impressed.
Sept. 5, 2008, 3:29 p.m. CST
forgot about the sounds, I read basically this technology allows him have the actors "act" with all them motion capture balls on them and even a camera on their head pointed at their faces. while the Planet Pandora world is on the computer and hes got the actors in their new skins acting away in realtime, able to manipulate anyway possible, (if that makes sense) I also read the data transfer for the CGI was at like 25-30 terrabytes a week or something and that was a good few months ago
Sept. 5, 2008, 3:33 p.m. CST
There are a lot of factors compensating for the budget. For one thing, this will be the impetuous to roll out 3d theaters all throughout America. That may end up saving the movie industry. Also, Cameron is developing technologies that will probably be ubiquitous ten years from now. This 300 million is not just an investment in a movie, it's an investment in the future of the industry. It may well be worth it, even if the movie doesn't turn a profit. And it _will_ turn a profit.
Sept. 5, 2008, 3:37 p.m. CST
I don't know anything about special effects, but didn't Richard Rodriquez film Sin City in his backyard with an extremely low overhead. The special effects in that movie were fine with me.
Sept. 5, 2008, 3:52 p.m. CST
It IS boring and doesn't blend for shit. Cg work will have succeeded when the day arrives where I can't tell what's real or fake. Not before then. I'm hoping Avatar has a killer story and is not just one clusterfuck of Beowulf-ish garbage CGI.
Sept. 5, 2008, 3:53 p.m. CST
The movie seems to be getting reluctantly popular press about it's budget. This cannot be good. Cameron has made the most expensive movie ever _twice_ now, and both times all the press swirling around the movie was negative based on the budget alone. Those movies made enormous amounts of cash. On a purely superstitious level, I worry that the "Fox could score another global commercial blockbuster" chatter will only curse the movie, and will kill Cameron's career. Of course, I think he likes to work under that kind of pressure.
Sept. 5, 2008, 3:53 p.m. CST
I'll start to care when pictures come out. I'll get excited if the trailers look good. Beyond that I care just enough to comment in this thread.
Sept. 5, 2008, 4:19 p.m. CST
by Mel Gibsteinberg
Dude where are the cybernetic legs, or titanium re-inforced super limbs. Come on Cameron, you have your future people traveling at near light speed, a feet that is incredibly hard to believe, and yet your main character doesn't have access to 20th century technology??? <P>Ah the problems with hardcore sci-fi, anytime you draw up the story as a reality based future scenario, you are open to so many holes and inconsistancies.
Sept. 5, 2008, 4:38 p.m. CST
and he cant afford new legs or something? His appartment seems pretty shitty so I think hes a bum?
Sept. 5, 2008, 4:43 p.m. CST
by Mel Gibsteinberg
But ever since 1984, the world is painted as this communist block, dystopian future with little to no commercial involvement. <P>Dude, time to switch gears, the capitalists won, which means commercial organizations rule everything. The future should look more like in Minority Report with GAP stores, USA Today's, talking cereal boxes, and the like. Gray, drab clothes, faceless, nameless masses of people ala THX, all seems so inconsistant. <P>The point is that there is variety, to make the masses believe that they have a choice, nevermind the fact that all variety is still controlled by the powers that be.
Sept. 5, 2008, 4:46 p.m. CST
Seriously, is metal working in a bikini top ever a good idea?
Sept. 5, 2008, 4:55 p.m. CST
Damn You Michael Bay
Sept. 5, 2008, 5:03 p.m. CST
It seems Earth is a bit of a shithole, which I admit has been done to death, "It looks like a cross between THX-1138 and a Calcutta train station" Im just reading through again been awhile since I read it and I picture josh or (jack I think he is now) is a type of Tom Cruise in Born on the 4th so I doubt he could afford new legs even if they could make them.
Sept. 5, 2008, 5:18 p.m. CST
Its a future earth from Cameron, of which we have only seen his Terminators futures, I cant wait, people are going to have to wear condoms on their eyeballs coz there gonna get FUCKED
Sept. 5, 2008, 5:19 p.m. CST
This takes place 100 years from now. The scriptment discusses dumb shit like MTV and that they still smoke. The weaponry sounds like todays weapons. The only way I would accept that a guy still uses a wheelchair is if society is broken into two parts. Rich and super poor. Where the poor has some of the same shit that we do now and the rich has moved forward and has no disabled people. Josh is disabled from war. I'm not so sure there will be wars in 100 years. We might, but if we do, HOLY HELL on the weapons used. It sounds like an imaginary story but with some simple mistakes. Unless you don't have access to the technology, there will be no physical disabilities, mainly through medicine using nano-tech. But will our planet be that divided in 100 years?
Sept. 5, 2008, 5:33 p.m. CST
or any anime with Mecha in im not a big anime fan but I loves me Mecha
Sept. 5, 2008, 5:35 p.m. CST
Bet the house on it Fox.
Sept. 5, 2008, 5:38 p.m. CST
From the biggest movie of all time to the biggest flop of all time. GG Cameron.
Sept. 5, 2008, 5:43 p.m. CST
I have a feeling that this is going to be a gigantic $300mil flop. Cameron hasn't made a great film since Aliens. You know it, I know it, theres nothing more that needs to be said. TITANTIC was a HUGE hit because every 14 year old girl in the world saw it at least once a week, every week, for several months to crush on Leo. Speaking of which, I think its pretty cool how DiCaprio has gone from pretty-boy adolescent crush bait, to super cool dude in the movies.
Sept. 5, 2008, 5:53 p.m. CST
yea heard about that a 2 parter, but its been quite for a while and no news weren't they aiming for an 09 release for part 1. Ive seen some of Rauri Robinsons stuff and I have a feeling he might be able to do something good with it, And Jopseph Gordan Levit for Tetsuo is an interesting start.
Sept. 5, 2008, 6:14 p.m. CST
Cameron is an industry changer. And it wasn't only 14 year old girls watching Titanic you dickwads. Fucking hell, if that was the case then movies like Traveling Pants and Twilight (watch it make 250 tops) would have reached above a billion. Titanic is fucking insanely overrated. Its like everybody wants to shit on it just because its the number 1 grossing movie of all time. I'm glad it is though, because that means shit like Spiderman 3 will never see what its like to be at that spot. Titanic deserves it more than most out there nowadays.
Sept. 5, 2008, 6:15 p.m. CST
LMFAO, I went in full rant mode there. Didn't even notice the error.
Sept. 5, 2008, 6:17 p.m. CST
I fucking hate T2: OLD YELLER aka T2: WE WUV WOO ROBODADDY. I think its an unbelievably awful, unintentionally hilarious piece of shit that ruins all the coolness of T1.
Sept. 5, 2008, 6:23 p.m. CST
Like it was written by robots about even worse robots. "Conglom parents express concern over artisitc expression. Hu-man difficult to control and unpredictable. Minimize expenditure to profit ratio risk factors. End Of Line". Shudder.
Sept. 5, 2008, 6:25 p.m. CST
Fuck yeah man, don't be embarrassed. Some of these fucking idiots on this site have seen Transformers 20 times......they should be more embarrassed. Also I have to say again, this movie is going to change things....forever. Ok sorry I got Jokered up there for a second. Not forever....but until the next Cameron flick it will. He's the most ambitious director out there (I would probably say Peter Jackson can be fairly ambitious too).
Sept. 5, 2008, 6:40 p.m. CST
A paraplegic ex-marine war veteran is unwillingly sent to establish a human settlement on the distant planet of Pandora, only to find himself battling humankind alongside the planet's indigenous Na'vi race in this ambitious, digital 3-D sci-fi epic from Academy Award-winning Titanic director James Cameron. The film, which marks Cameron's first dramatic feature since 1997's Titanic, will be shot on the proprietary FUSION digital 3-D cameras developed by Cameron in collaboration with Vince Pace, and will offer a groundbreaking mix of live-action dramatic performances and computer-generated effects. Australian actor Sam Worthington stars as the reluctant human settler Jake Sully, with actress Zoe Saldana signing on to portray the local woman who enters into a romantic affair with the hero. The revolutionary motion-capture system created for the film allows the facial expressions of actors to be captured as a virtual camera system enables them to see what their computer-generated counterparts will be seeing in the film, and Peter Jackson's Oscar-winning Weta Digital visual effects house has been hired to supervise Avatar's complex visual effects. Wes Studi, Sigourney Weaver, CCH Pounder, and Michelle Rodriguez round out the cast. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Sept. 5, 2008, 6:53 p.m. CST
by Mel Gibsteinberg
You may not like moments of T2, but to call it "unintentionally hilarious" and awful? <P>Dude you are either a huge troll, or you are 14 and weren't even born when T2 came out, which would explain why you have no respect for masterpieces. Which begs the question, why the hell are you here?
Sept. 5, 2008, 6:55 p.m. CST
by Mel Gibsteinberg
So I am reading through the scriptment (thanks again Charyou Tree) and I have to wonder, are they building practical sets? I really hope so. It's possible to film a lot of this flick practically, and not take the green screen of dreams approach that Lucas used on the prequels, which I think ultimately resulted in lazy film-making and part (only part) of the undoing of those movies.
Sept. 5, 2008, 7:23 p.m. CST
This doesn't tell us one new thing...we already knew it was heavily CG and motion capture. This sounds like conjecture about how much is CG...so they come up with arbitrary percentages. And I doubt the budget is $300 million...possible but probably bullshit.
Sept. 5, 2008, 7:32 p.m. CST
1. THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON 2. QUANTUM OF SOLACE 3. THE ROAD Those are the ones I really want to see. Also I'm hoping Valkyrie will be good. And I'll definitely check out Body of Lies (I'm a Scott fan). But I'm not going close to Eagle Eye, a Shia Labeouf led movie sounds like crap to me. Or Righteous Kill, I'll leave the DeNiro/Pacino movie bliss with Heat. Also King Kong wasn't really critically bashed. The only thing critics found bad about it was some length issues, otherwise it was widely liked. And audiences didn't hate it either. It didn't do as well as the studio hoped though, but still it made quite a bit of money, and the imagery in that film was fucking beautiful.
Sept. 5, 2008, 7:43 p.m. CST
http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2008/04/james-camerons-avatar-spy-shots-strange.html here's a site showing an Avatar prop. So they do have props and sets.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:08 p.m. CST
by Teddy Artery
turns out to be... I did read the scriptment and it was interesting enough to keep me glued to every page. For me, it seemd like an Edgar Rice Burroughs adventure. The other movie I'm really interested in is the Benjamin Button movie. Fincher is pushing his limits with this one.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:16 p.m. CST
"Oooh, the shininess breaks the illusion!!" Fuck that, just show me something I haven't seen before. "Looks like a videogame" is the most bullshit played out critical nonsense word. Who gives a fuck if it doesn't look totally realistic, just blow my mind with something nifty. The End!
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:30 p.m. CST
Is mr. incontinence pants slagging off the mighty T2 AGAIN? for fuck's sake, you sad bastard, find some new schtick! Cameron will rule the roost with Avatar-I have absolutely no doubts about that whatsoever. the early treatment from 1996 was fantastic in itself, and that has obviously gone through some major revisions since then. this movie will likely be cameron's masterwork (well, until the next one). Roll on the Avatar and Battle Angel trilogies, and The Dive.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:40 p.m. CST
There is going to be a LOT of props and sets, but so much of Pandora itself will be CGI out of necessity. <p> And yes Mel Gibsteinberg, Laserpants is serious. He's the guy on numerous talkbacks saying that the Prequels are brilliant. That should give you an idea of what he thinks makes a good film.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:53 p.m. CST
Why does it suck? Because Peter Jackson has no idea what makes the original brilliant. Peter Jackson seems to love the character of King Kong, but he obviously doesn't love the film KING KONG. The reason the original works is because Cooper and Schoedsack wanted Kong to be the antagonist. He IS the antagonist! Willis O'Brien and Max Steiner make him sympathetic to the audience only at the climax as he is about to fall to his death from the Empire State Building. A very difficult tightrope of tone and pathos. Peter Jackson was like a fumbling amateur with his take. <p> The REAL king of the epic is about to make his triumphant return. AVATAR won't live up to all this hype, it will surpass it.
Sept. 5, 2008, 9:59 p.m. CST
Fine so you didn't like the story (I did) I simply do not understand how you can deny the technichal brilliance of the film. Its exceedingly well made. The idea that Laserpants reduces it down to a crush-on-Leo film is depressing. Why don;t you try watching it.
Sept. 5, 2008, 10:15 p.m. CST
...Any of Cameron's deep sea documentaries? Are they available on DVD? Are they good?
Sept. 5, 2008, 10:35 p.m. CST
he proved it in this thread. And if he truly likes the Star Wars prequels he's an even bigger fool. (hell, I could argue that the original trilogy is pretty weak too, but not as weak as the prequels clearly). And one9deuce I see what you're saying about Jackson's King Kong. Still I enjoyed the film, and its better than anything Lucas has done (yes I must mention his stupid ass again, since he's a GOD to most of these foolish nerds) besides THX 1138 and Raiders.
Sept. 5, 2008, 10:40 p.m. CST
Sept. 5, 2008, 10:51 p.m. CST
No matter how mind-blowing the CGI will be, i don't think people are that interested into sci-fi and stuffs.
Sept. 5, 2008, 11:17 p.m. CST
I was a huge fan of T1 when it came out, I was about 12 when it came out. TOTALLY loved it. Was obsessed with it, really, for awhile. And then, several years later... T2 is shat out. A film in which we find out that John Connor is an UNBELIEVEABLY annoying whiny bitch ass teenager who likes Guns n Roses (without irony), and then we later learn that the Terminator, the ultimate robot assassin, has been inexplicably reprogrammed as an ersatz father figure, culiminating in an ending that is EXACTLY THE SAME AS OLD YELLER, with Butch Lesbo Mom and Whiny Bitch General of the Future weep as they have to kill their ROBODADDY. T2 = Perhaps one of the corniest, most emo, saddest wank film for affluent suburban teenage boys with extreme father issues EVER MADE. In short, T2 = G-A-Y.
Sept. 6, 2008, 12:32 a.m. CST
ff7 is his name. Except he actually shows taste sometimes. Sure, he'll bash a film like T2. But he'll also bash Star Wars. Apparently LaserPants likes the Star Wars prequels....so yeah you're the gay one you stupid fuck. You probably cried (in sadness, not in laughter) when the Episode 2 love scenes kicked in. And T2 isn't fucking emo at all. Its just relevant to the times. Kids were like that. They were all fucking whiners. Kids in all movies are annoying as shit. Because fucking kids are whiners. Fuck I'm whining right now, and you're fucking whining too (but you're above 20 so you should be ashamed of yourself you fat Star Wars nerd). Fucking hell, what do you expect John Connor to act like? You fucking stupid dickwad? He's a teen who doesn't yet know of the threat that was coming. He's going to be a stupid punk, relevance. Hell, kids act like that still. Oh wait, you were expecting the kid to be a badass supersoldier already in his eaarly teens. I think you had the real issues...masculinity issues.
Sept. 6, 2008, 1:10 a.m. CST
by My friends call me Killjoy
No one's going to win an argument on this site about Titanic being a good movie...but, it is. If it only made that money because of Leo, then why has no other Leonardo Dicaprio film grossed even half that? If 12-16 year old girls were such a force in the cinematic world, why didn't Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants make any money? You guys are idiots. Titanic was a "perfect storm" that was up against next to nothing at the box office for nearly four months. Everyone went to see it, and yes, there was an extreme amount of repeat business the likes we hadn't seen since E.T. It also killed during February for Valentine's day, having it's biggest weekend grosses two months after it's initial wide release. Only great movies perform that way. If someone said that Dark Knight only broke 500 million because of sweaty, overweight fanboys going back to see it 20 times, that might insult those who think it's a good movie. Show that you have brains and can recognize a quality film even if it's not your own cup-of-tea.
Sept. 6, 2008, 1:21 a.m. CST
by My friends call me Killjoy
I'll give Jim the benefit of the doubt. Avatar will be good.
Sept. 6, 2008, 2:35 a.m. CST
Sept. 6, 2008, 2:39 a.m. CST
by Motoko Kusanagi
nothing else matters
Sept. 6, 2008, 3:29 a.m. CST
It must be pretty wretched to live in a world where The Abyss and T2 suck yet T3 is great. I feel for you man, I really do.
Sept. 6, 2008, 3:54 a.m. CST
but i think it might not make much more money than it cost because I don't think the general public are impressed with cgi anymore.. its so common no one cares too much and the other reason is that in order for it to make more than its budget people other than film geeks will have to be interested. Titanic made so much money because even grandmas watched it.. will grandmas wanna watch this??
Sept. 6, 2008, 5:06 a.m. CST
You do realise that Guns N'Roses were the biggest band in the world when T2 came out?
Sept. 6, 2008, 6:05 a.m. CST
Titanic won 11 Oscars, tying it with 1959's Ben-Hur. Return of the King won 11 Oscars as well, tying Ben-Hur and Titanic's record.
Sept. 6, 2008, 7:04 a.m. CST
Going the "its great cuz it grossed a lot of money" is one the slipperiest slopes you'll find yourself on. ID$ was the highest grossing movie of the year = quality? I think not. The "it was number one on its 9th week of release" has been duplicated many times ... My Big Fatr Greek Wedding comes to mind. Women notoreiously rely on word of mouth from friends to go see films (and buy books and other media for that matter). Stick to the film itself if your'e going to debate its quality (which even the most diehard fan has toadmit theres some pretty clunky lines of dialogue in it)
Sept. 6, 2008, 7:14 a.m. CST
No film is perfect - including the seemingly-sainted Terminator. Please all you Cameron apologists - justify the bit right before the fuck scene - where Linda Hamilton spouts out, through snot-choked nostrils, I might add, "Pain ... so much pain" *Gag* To which Michael Biehn, probably gagging on the bile he must have been tasting, goes on his "I studied that picture - every line, every curve. I came back through time for you Sarah. I loooooove you" snigger-inducing monologue. Insipid, cloying, maudlin, yanked from the scented pages of a purplish bodice-ripper. But, just to show you I'm not a hard-hearted man, yes, the clutching hands while rutting was a nice touch.
Sept. 6, 2008, 9:02 a.m. CST
Although I do like ROTS, think its great, I have gone on AT LENGTH about how much I hated TPM and AOTC which are two of the worse movies ever made. Pay attention, kid, and do try and keep up. Oh, and don't cwy too much when ROBODADDY has to get shot out back the barn like OLD YELLER. G-A-Y.
Sept. 6, 2008, 9:03 a.m. CST
I fucking HATED them too. Since when does popularity = quality? Sure, sometimes it does, but New Kids on the Block were just as popular as Guns n' Roses, does that make them cool too? Duh.
Sept. 6, 2008, 9:34 a.m. CST
When I rip T2 apart. Its like someone murdered a member of your family, whom you still live with, writhing in obese middle aged virgin torment, deep in the dank mom's basement of the soul. The Lowest Common D, weeping in their underoos, waiting for ROBODADDY to come home and kiss the tears away. *Sigh* G-A-Y.
Sept. 6, 2008, 10:35 a.m. CST
Otherwise, I've got to travel. And with the price of gas, it ain't happenin'. And that's a sorry fact, despite that I'm a... H U G E ...James Cameron fan. If it's not playing near me, I'll have to miss it. (Damn it.) (And I've still never seen that TERMINATOR 3-D thing at the amusement park.)
Sept. 6, 2008, 10:46 a.m. CST
Sept. 6, 2008, 11:54 a.m. CST
by the book
FUCKIN' HELL THAT VIDEO SUCKS.
Sept. 6, 2008, 12:23 p.m. CST
Whether you like them or not the fact is that listening to Guns N'Roses is perfectly valid for John Connor's character. And your contempt for T2 is, frankly, hilarious.
Sept. 6, 2008, 12:26 p.m. CST
If you were 12 when The Terminator came out (which would make you 36 now) why are you writing like a 14 year old? Weird...
Sept. 6, 2008, 1:33 p.m. CST
Please feel free to point out to me where my writing is akin to that of a 14 year olds? Those posts sound more like this:<br><br> " Apparently LaserPants likes the Star Wars prequels....so yeah you're the gay one you stupid fuck. You probably cried (in sadness, not in laughter) when the Episode 2 love scenes kicked in. And T2 isn't fucking emo at all. Its just relevant to the times. Kids were like that. They were all fucking whiners. Kids in all movies are annoying as shit. Because fucking kids are whiners. Fuck I'm whining right now, and you're fucking whining too (but you're above 20 so you should be ashamed of yourself you fat Star Wars nerd). Fucking hell, what do you expect John Connor to act like? You fucking stupid dickwad? He's a teen who doesn't yet know of the threat that was coming. He's going to be a stupid punk, relevance. Hell, kids act like that still. Oh wait, you were expecting the kid to be a badass supersoldier already in his eaarly teens. I think you had the real issues...masculinity issues."<br><br> Note the obsession with penises and homosexuality. This is the post of a clearly gender-conflicted adolescent who saw T2 at an early age, got a hard-on for ROBODADDY, and hasn't been the same since.
Sept. 6, 2008, 2:21 p.m. CST
and how theyre using it. Spielberg - Jurassic Park = awesome. Spielberg - IJATKOTCS = shit. Cameron, to date has used CG as it should be used - with finesse and subtlety. I'm very excited to see what he's going to do with a CG heavy film like this.
Sept. 6, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST
yes it had clunky dialogue at times but so what. Remove the love story and it still would of done gandbusters. It's a great re-telling of a TRUE event. The attention to detail was awesome. The love story and the popular song helped bring in the chicks, + Leo. But dudes were whacking and fondling their rods to Kate's booby too. It's epic, based on a true event, the visuals were great, Horner's score fits the film perfectly. So many guys won't admit that they like the film or at least the first half because of their middle school insecurities and that they have a little pee pee. It's in my top 10 films ever.
Sept. 6, 2008, 2:37 p.m. CST
will appeal to the masses is if it has a fantastic character based story. The sci-fi and visuals will not bring in people only interested in top-notch story telling. I don't think it'll flop but it won't do Titanic numbers either. Yes it'll have repeat viewings but only by people like me who is interested in sci-fi, 3D, alien life, the future...etc. Like Cameron said a while back before a lot of filming was done was he didn't know if it'll be a good movie or not but he said I can guarantee you that what you'll see will blow your mind.
Sept. 6, 2008, 5:47 p.m. CST
Is getting so much damn hype, people are going to expect nothing short of a masterpiece, and if Cameron doesn't deliver one, he will suffer for it. Not financially. but creatively. It isn't that I don't have faith he will deliver a great movie, but the hyoe is getting to be too much already. Check out my blog- http://movietalktime.blogspot.com/
Sept. 6, 2008, 6:08 p.m. CST
Don't get insulted when we guess that you're 14 years old. Hopefully you ARE 14, because if you're over 30 and talk the way you do then you've got some serious issues. <p> I mean serious issues like developmental disorders, not just having shitty taste in films.