Oct. 29, 2008, 12:47 a.m. CST
Oct. 29, 2008, 12:54 a.m. CST
by George Newman
haha, sounds like he isnt the biggest fan of some recent comic filmic techniques.
Oct. 29, 2008, 12:57 a.m. CST
by George Newman
I much prefer these eye-witness accounts over the postulating and hype. <p>I want something a bit more specific though, like how lifelike do these CG aliens or whatever look. Does Cameron use really killer lighting? Will it fool anyone and everyone?
Oct. 29, 2008, 1:04 a.m. CST
by Horace Cox
Get on it Favs.
Oct. 29, 2008, 2:59 a.m. CST
Quint...come on man...he is a very exciting director with SO much to offer. Isn't there a bit more to say or extent then "yeah." Which if you listen to your sound bits you are saying every 30 seconds. We all know you can converse. So do it...that was almost annoying to listen too. Otherwise, well done getting Favs to say everything he gave up.
Oct. 29, 2008, 3:02 a.m. CST
I think he's a genius. And it's a lot of fun to scream his name. :D
Oct. 29, 2008, 3:46 a.m. CST
Welcome back James Cameron, we've all missed you.
Oct. 29, 2008, 4:48 a.m. CST
The transcription of the interview seemed a bit weird. Like, the punctuation seemed off. Nice interview, though.
Oct. 29, 2008, 5:27 a.m. CST
by lex romero
I'm fucking there. Iron man's weakness was its action scenes, they were a little too short and never fully explored what IM was capable of. Can't wait to see what GT would do with them.
Oct. 29, 2008, 7:15 a.m. CST
He's just using you.
Oct. 29, 2008, 7:58 a.m. CST
Currently most CGI composites are rendered at 2k resolution for 4k films. It is near impossible to render CGI elements at the same resolution of film, because of the processing power required to do it. Imax has a much higer resolution 4k. Thats what the CGI Imax comments mean, and Iron had tons of CGI shots. Theres a lot less practical in there then what people believe. 2 posts dedicated to this interview and the CGI gripe comes up a lot. You make it sound like Stan Winstons Practical suit was all the film required. One day this CGI sucks shit will end. Fuck...
Oct. 29, 2008, 8:14 a.m. CST
What the fuck is the gripe with the Glasses man??? Non Glasses True Perspective Real Time high quality 3d is a long way off. You'll have grandchildren by then. You have depth tricks for monitors now. Which is really a bunch of 2d planes stacked on top of one another. It's not true 3d since the depth is a perspective trick created by each layer which is incapable of matching the true perspective depths of the Real D Glasses system. The other system employs a spinning screen to output true 3d, and again view depth is trapped to the relative size of the screen. These issues are not noticeable when the 3d subject is framed in nice and tight, but add a vista in the background with several depth of view elements and the technology hit's itself in the face. Really Real D doesn't have an competition for a while, and the glasses are fine. Some people have to wear glasses all the time, and they cope.... WTF! Glasses not sexy enough to face suck I guess. <P> That or the Facestuffers have to keep pushing them back up to the bridge of their nose from looking down into the popcorn tub for most of the film- Greaseprinting the hell out of the lens in the process. I have no pity for those guys.
Oct. 29, 2008, 8:52 a.m. CST
I was looking forward to what Tartakovsky was gonna do with that. He's one the few new creative forces I trust.
Oct. 29, 2008, 9:59 a.m. CST
Try it! It's fun!
Oct. 29, 2008, 10:24 a.m. CST
Oct. 29, 2008, 11:10 a.m. CST
I think the argument against going to a more download-based sales rather than a physical DVD because of piracy concerns is silly. <br>I download a lot of TV shows from iTunes but I also buy DVDs and its a TON easier to rip a DVD. The TV shows I download from iTunes are inpenetrable fortresses... whereas one needs only to download HandBrake or some similar program to easily get to the files on a DVD (I don't distribute them... I only need to do this so I can get my TV shows on my iPod). I am by no means a computer genius yet even I know how to get DVD files onto a computer, where if one were so inclined they could distribute all over the place. ITunes downloads? Not so much.<br><br>Simply put, there's no reason for "piracy" to hold back progression from disc-based sales to download-based sales when it comes to TV and movies.
Oct. 29, 2008, 11:26 a.m. CST
Love that show. Named my dog after him, its my xbox live handle, thinking of getting ink done honoring that show. Really needs an ending. And I haven't ready your post DANNY GLOVER but honestly, its not name dropping when its referenced with Gendy, every episode is saturated with those directors, just like Kill Bill is.
Oct. 29, 2008, 1:01 p.m. CST
Avatar will then skull fuck your eye sockets and cum all over your brain.
Oct. 29, 2008, 1:28 p.m. CST
But I'd do anything James Cameron wanted.
Oct. 29, 2008, 2:29 p.m. CST
With Jon Favreau being inspired by the work of Genndy Tartakovsky and James Cameron,...it becomes obvious that the man will continue to learn and grow, as a director. And THAT makes me all the more excited for IRON MAN 2. --Favreau, I'm in your corner.
Oct. 29, 2008, 3:32 p.m. CST
Excellent idea to bring Genndy Tartakovsky on, Favs. His crazy violent, yet elegant and dramatic storytelling style would add wonderful intensity to "Iron Man 2." This is very cool news.
Oct. 29, 2008, 4:05 p.m. CST
if he was going to find any way to sneak a Gwyneth Paltrow beaver shot into Iron Man 2 ? I don't know who was responsible for it, but god DAMN she looked great in that movie. Never liked her before, but she was smoking hot.
Oct. 29, 2008, 4:15 p.m. CST
..I liked him better and it made him look shorter.
Oct. 29, 2008, 4:32 p.m. CST
by Sith Witch
It's still coming...just on halt until more funding can be found. Straight from the mouth of Wendy Froud that is...
Oct. 29, 2008, 9:48 p.m. CST
It's so inspiring that he brought in someone like Tartakovsky. It's like old Hollywood tries to keep you in the place where you "made" it in, where as new Hollywood is saying, "I want to work with you to make this awesome." Now if someone would tap Jackson Public and Doc Hammer....
Oct. 29, 2008, 9:52 p.m. CST
<P> Everybody has been scrambling for the reason the world will end according to the Mayan calendar in 2012. The Mayans are right, a sacrifice of sorts, something of unknown origin will "end time" in hopes to prevent a much bigger calamity.... </P> <P> Palin is running for president in 2012. </P>
Oct. 30, 2008, 1:29 a.m. CST
A lot of bashing has been directed toward the Star Wars prequels using too much CGI in almost any given action shot, making it difficult for the eye to focus on one thing. Similar thing can be said for the "too busy" design of the robots in Transoformers... What I'm getting at is, even though 3-D (once it's perfected for the masses) will most likely only be used for the big summer action movies, do you think it would in any way be overkill to the point of auidence disconnection? I know all we hear about is what a more immersive experience it will be (though most of this is just speculation), but just like every other gimmick that's been used with cinema, it won't be able to polish a turd. How would it even be used? Similar to IMAX, where The Dark Knight had it for select action sequences, and let the dramatic, dialogue heavy stuff play out in a normal format? If so, won't all this switching between aspect ratio formats, and dimensions take the viewer out of the story? Won't there be a weird structure put on action, and dramatic sequences regarding when and where they can end? What if there's an action sequence intercut with a heavy dialogue scene? How will this all transfer to the home video market? I'm not worried about stuff like Avatar, because in a guy like Cameron's hands, I'm confident the story will sustain, even when I get the thing home and my home theatre can't fully exlpoit his effects. And I get the point of making it an incomparable experience to go to the movies again... But I guess I'm just not convince. I mean, they haven't even perfected CGI, what do they expect to offer a newer more expensive format, besides less experience? I'm not a backwards thinker, I just think everyone seems so focused on the possibilites, that they might lose sight of the only thing that truly matters (as is always the case when Hollywood finds a new toy); story.
Oct. 30, 2008, 5:11 a.m. CST
goddamn this tool hate fucking gets too me more than any other subject related to film right now. Effects have to be handled with care to pull them off in such a way that the audience is fooled. People are talking about how perfect Cameron is with CGI. Excuse me?!?!?! The CGI shit in Titanic shows like a sore thumb. The digital people shots mostly. Same thing with the miniature work in Aliens. Fuck man, when are you people gonna stop believing your own bullshit!?!?!?!?! One reason CGI keeps getting detected is because it's still being pushing into new territory, and usually the first attempts fail. Thank god the industry doesn't share your juvenile sentiments for practical. The more it's used the better it understood and advanced- and ultimately the better it will become. Latex took a long time to get to where it got. Fuck Rick Baker was using simple latex air badders in Thriller. You people are jaded to the max. Pick up some books on both subjects and fucking read them. Understand the limits of both mediums and the huge advances still up for grabs for CGI. We are not even rendering most CGI elements at 4k resolution. Star Wars Episode 2 was the first time layer effects with different diffuse and opacity levels were used to simulate real human skin. CGI is still a fucking baby!!!! Lon Chaney and Jack Pierce did latex, and look how long it took to get too Yoda in the empire strikes back... You people you buying into your own bullshit in such a way it's fucking unbelievable. I have nothing against practical. I like it too. But the CGI Drek has to stop.
Oct. 30, 2008, 9:39 a.m. CST
by Right Bastard
The ONLY good thing about the Prequels.
Oct. 30, 2008, 3:21 p.m. CST
that would suck
Oct. 30, 2008, 3:23 p.m. CST
<P> in a movie and another pet peeve of mine is the camera is to fucking close a lot of the times. If you add the 3D to it, it's a big clusterfuck blur. You do feel disconnected from the world you are watching. TDK did a great job of showing some cool shit but not losing you in the action. Call it controlled chaos. </P> <P> Cameron I doubt will let shit be like Transformers and some of the blurry moments is Beowulf..etc. This is a different technique to the 3D. Avatar will be like a palace while all other movies will smell and look like an outhouse located by the beer tent at the end of a night at a carnival in Texas on a 100 degree day. </P>
Oct. 31, 2008, 2:04 a.m. CST
by half vader
Now THAT would be something to see! :P
Nov. 3, 2008, 10:58 a.m. CST
Nov. 3, 2008, 1:04 p.m. CST
by Second Try
Nov. 5, 2008, 11:54 a.m. CST