Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Does Cameron's AVATAR have some bugs in its effects system?

either way... by havocSchultz	Jun 30th, 2006 07:05:36 AM
...I gots faith in cameron...and all motion capture or not - at least we're getting a new film from him...
100% Digital?? by jaxnnux	Jun 30th, 2006 07:08:23 AM
Damn. I don't want to see another Polar Express.
This is all Lucas's fault by ATARI	Jun 30th, 2006 07:14:31 AM

Can you say, 'Final Fantasy'? by MKiro	Jun 30th, 2006 07:15:36 AM

$315 million!? by Zarles	Jun 30th, 2006 07:21:00 AM
Buy everyone on the continent of Africa a Cup-O-Soup? Hell no! Stroke James "What? Another Titanic Documentary? Comin' Right Up!" Cameron's ego? Hell yeah!
Someone named Peter involved..... by Darth Kong	Jun 30th, 2006 07:31:46 AM
...in Master and Commander. That'd be Peter Weir right? Cool, so Peter Weir is in charge of FX on AVATAR. What next, Larry Wachowski is Costume Designer and Make Up artist? Francis Ford Coppola for Kraft Services?
Spirits Within by c4andmore	Jun 30th, 2006 07:32:46 AM
is an underrated movie in my opinion, but what the hell do I know?
jesus fuck 315? by mikey mike	Jun 30th, 2006 07:33:02 AM
that's scary but still great news i guess
I agree with Zarles by Shigeru	Jun 30th, 2006 07:33:11 AM
This is getting fucking ridiculous. So this will be an all-cgi movie? Blech.
Cameroon by tompbeast	Jun 30th, 2006 07:43:31 AM
maybee it's utilising this new 3D tech they bin talkin bout but still too much to spend on ego trips with shite dialogue!
Weta's supervisor from Master and Commander? by gengrievous82	Jun 30th, 2006 07:46:15 AM
As far as I know, this being from Cinefex magazine, the only thing Weta did for Master and Commander was construction of additional Acheron miniatures. Weta didn't even do any photography, Asylum shot Weta's miniatures against a blue screen. So, really, Weta Digital wasn't even involved in Master and Commander. Just Weta Workshop.
Titanic 2 : AquaFAG! by Giz	Jun 30th, 2006 07:50:05 AM
it makes sence. Jack goes sinky sink, hits the bottom of the deep blue, ressurects as AquaFAG...
Am I reading wrong? by Edward Brock	Jun 30th, 2006 07:51:45 AM
All I'm reading so far is 100% digital, not 100% CGI. As far as I know, both Superman Returns and King Kong are 100% digital.
vouche? by darquelyte	Jun 30th, 2006 07:55:16 AM
Spelling police wonders where the "e" came from. Looking forward to this, but I sure hope it's not another hokey, sentimental flick from him. Oy.
Is that in Pesos? by Lezbo Milk	Jun 30th, 2006 07:58:36 AM
I sure as hell hope so, or JC has gone off the deep end.
$ 315M? Not a chance in hell! by GriffinMill	Jun 30th, 2006 08:00:08 AM
With a budget like that (and accounting for Camerons excess spending on just about any movie he's made as well as his points share) there's not a studio in the world who would make the film! Even if you'd gross Titanic-like numbers for this, you'd be hard-pressed to just break-even. And let's face it: Avatar is not going to do even half Titanic's numbers regardless of how well the end product turns out to be (knock on wood). my guess: the $ 315 M claim is completely bogus.
I've gotten better scoops by Kentucky Colonel	Jun 30th, 2006 08:08:14 AM
at my local Cold Stone.
315 Mil?? this movie better suck me off for that dough by tripp5	Jun 30th, 2006 08:10:23 AM
seriously...315 miiiilllllion? will AVATAR end world hunger? why in god's name would a movie cost so much to make? its not like he's gonna make another $1 billion movie anyway, esp if its gonna be a sci-fi film
...we need to give 110% of ourselves! by TraumReiter	Jun 30th, 2006 08:14:03 AM
100 % digital doesn't mean 100 % CGI does it? Episode II and III were shot 100 % digital but they are not 100 % CGI...well almost. Please Harry explain!!!
X-MEN 3 cost $215 million by godoffireinhell	Jun 30th, 2006 08:25:47 AM
and that was directed by Brett Fucking Ratner for chrissake. Of course FOX will feel much safer giving Cameron that plus another 100 mil. This movie will revolutionize the theatrical experience and fuck the camcorder pirates right into their stupid little assholes. Money well spent is what those $315 million is.
Well, it's '100% motion-capture' by MKiro	Jun 30th, 2006 08:38:57 AM
...which would suggest 100% CGI. Wouldn't it?
Bugs? Send the Colonial Marines! by CuervoJones	Jun 30th, 2006 08:46:04 AM
And, once again, Cameron is God
"I apologize if this is nothing you don't already know" by ScarranHalfBreed	Jun 30th, 2006 08:50:12 AM
Fat chance of that. And this sounds lush.
CGI by bluelou_boyle	Jun 30th, 2006 08:52:21 AM
Maybe !100% motion-capture' refers to the alien creatures in the film. The 'Avatars'. The human characters will probably be played by normal actors.
Cameron must have one hell of a movie in his mind.... by TheResident	Jun 30th, 2006 09:02:53 AM
315 million dollars!!!! is beginning to become fuckin unethical to spend so much money making a movie
Remember when movies had actors and shit? by brycemonkey	Jun 30th, 2006 09:06:52 AM
Fuck all this 'motion capture', 'rotoscoping', '100% cgi' shit. Or the future. One of those. I'm hungover. Get me something.
Maybe the motion capture signals command real robots by BrandLoyalist	Jun 30th, 2006 09:14:53 AM
Then it could be 100% mo-cap and not be 100% CGI.
315M for revolutionary VFX, theatre admission, same. by JDanielP	Jun 30th, 2006 09:15:06 AM
Sounds like a great deal to me!
It's "vouch," not "vouche," you douche. by DwarfSidious	Jun 30th, 2006 09:27:23 AM
And quit using fifteen fucking exclamation points in every headline. You're not an illiterate teenager. At least hire an editor. You can afford it.
315m is really not that surprising by erockwilly	Jun 30th, 2006 09:31:17 AM
the lake house cost 220.
How brass are Cameron's balls? by Saluki	Jun 30th, 2006 09:44:54 AM
Alright, cool the hyperboyle. T2, Abyss, True Lies barely watchable? My ass. People act like Cameron has never made expensive movies, let alone the most expensive. T2 was the first with a $100 million budget, and Titanic was the 1st with a $200 million budget (Waterworld was $175 million). So now the cost has went up another $100 million in the past DECADE for brand new technology. Big fuckin' surprise. You're paying the same to see this one as you did for White Chicks. End of story. Did someone bring up Lucas here? Grate your dick off now, you won't need it. Get ready to have your face rocked off AGAIN by the master.
Thank you master. by jaxnnux	Jun 30th, 2006 09:51:06 AM
Should I lick your balls now or later?
SPIELBERG by THE KNIGHT	Jun 30th, 2006 09:51:14 AM
Even this guy manages to still work with budgets between 70 million and somewhere in the 100 plus million dollar range... This better be the last movie in the world with a price tag of 315 million... Is the world coming to an end? -_-
FAKE!!! by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 09:51:23 AM
This movie will bomb...mark my words! MARK THEM!!! Cat people??? meeeeeowwwwwwwwwww... how laaaaame
Movies cost more nowadays by moondoggy2u	Jun 30th, 2006 09:51:42 AM
Because Directors, Actors, and unions (probably the same thing) are taking an increasing percentage of the budget pie (and in many cases, the gross pie). As a result, the films have become hideously more expensive.
AVATAR has to be all CGI because... by danowen	Jun 30th, 2006 09:57:24 AM
... it's set on an alien world. To do that justice you can't just film exotic locations on Earth and mess with the colouring and add CGI. Well, you CAN, but it looks like Cameron wants us to experience a fully ALIEN world unlike anything we've seen before. I've read the scriptment and, yeah, $315m sounds excessive... but I'm no expert. The budget of T3 and Superman seemed excessive considering what "obvious" FX moments there were in there... but there are hundreds of hidden costs you don't see on-screen, or understand just what's involved in creating them.
Also, by moondoggy2u	Jun 30th, 2006 09:58:49 AM
Remember that hollywood now releases movies to a much wider audience than they used to, and therefor, are willing to risk more money for the greater returns. It sounds freaky to a lot of people, but remember that James Cameron has yet to direct a flop, his last movie was extremely highly aclaimed, and it earned 1.5 billion dollars worldwide (maybe more). To whomever is footing the bill (assuming its one company), this is translated as something as close to a sure thing as possible. There will be oodles of free publicity, many, many interested people, and a very good chance that this guy will knock it out of the park. Its true, there is no sure thing, but this is about as close as it gets for an investor. A 330 million dollar investment for a film that has every chance of earning at least twice that.
Some of the $315mil will indirectly go to Battle Angel. by The Outlander	Jun 30th, 2006 10:03:22 AM
No doubt the work done on Avatar will assist in the creation of Battle Angel. So the a pecentage of that $315mil sould be added to the Battle Angel budget.
So what is this movie about? by DeCypher44	Jun 30th, 2006 10:12:44 AM
Seriously, I have no idea what this story is. Can someone clue me in?
It'S About MAN CATS!! MEOWwwwwwwwwwww by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 10:21:24 AM
Giant man cat people that live on earth cough up furballs and and groom each other. Seriously, you think I'm joking, but that's what it's about. GIANT MAN CAT PEOPLE!
You All Need To Read "Final Cut" by CaptDanielRoe	Jun 30th, 2006 10:23:03 AM
About the making of "Heaven's Gate." Not about those shaven dudes with the Nikes and Hale-Bopp. The book about Michael Cimino and United Artists. Just read it. It's not relevant so much to Cameron but to bloated budgets and autonomy. It contains small factoids about a live-action LOTR that never happened, too.
Here's a picture of one of Cameron's MAN CATS in aVatar by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 10:24:59 AM
http://arania.kamiki.net/sabin kamikicontest/Anetra_Pendragon %20Kamiki%20avatar.jpg MEowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww THAT'S A HOT MAN CAT!
$315 mil?? by movieman742	Jun 30th, 2006 10:39:46 AM
That does sound a little excessive but Superman Returns was set on Earth and had close to that. Set on another world with Aliens might up that a little. And speaking of the 100% digital/motion capture. I hope to god it's just the sets and Aliens, no the humans. Cameron always talks about how he likes doing the effects and this 100% motion capture and digital suprises me. 100% digital means it will be shot on a digital camera. The 100% motion capture is the big question mark to me. I hope it's just the aliens that are 100% motion capture.
wolack22 - you weren't kidding by DeCypher44	Jun 30th, 2006 10:41:03 AM
http://www.moviehole.net/news/ 20060118_cameron_returns_to_av atar.html So, I just read the description of this movie at the site above. This sounds pretty ghey. Cat people? Really?? I guess this will be one for all the "Furries" out there.
It should end up costing $US250 M by BDuncan	Jun 30th, 2006 10:46:02 AM
It probably would end up costing $US 315 M if it was shot on film and had a number of outdoor locales, but since the movie is being shot on high definition video and mostly all in a studio, JC should be able to do it for 250 M.
Here's another picture of one of Cameron's MAN CATS!!! by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 10:47:21 AM
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/d ataimages/original/images36392 1_tiger-man.jpg MEOwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwww James CAmeron = lost all potential to make a decent film. SAVE THE MAN CATS!!
Heaven's Gate (the cult) Fun Trivia Fact by Kentucky Colonel	Jun 30th, 2006 10:54:28 AM
Didja know that Nichelle Nichols brother was one of the Heaven's Gate suicide-dudes? (Insert Joke Here)
"Cat" girls by Britbloke	Jun 30th, 2006 10:56:17 AM
I'd just like to say a big thank you to everyone for avoiding the generally inevitable "pussy" jokes. Score one for our side!
'pussy' is a vulgar word... I prefer 'Cat minge' by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 10:58:15 AM
MEowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww CAmeron likes the cat minges meowwwwwww
well this is kind of bad news really.... by misnomer	Jun 30th, 2006 11:09:24 AM
I mean the majority of the movie is the love story between sullys avatar and the cat-girl, but I always thought it's be great to see real actors in this world-mainly because the script felt like a japamnimation-and I have a feeling that 100% digital is going to take off some of the edge and end up like a FF movie....
Wolack22 by Britbloke	Jun 30th, 2006 11:09:34 AM
Yes, that's clearly much better. I congratulate you for your self-restraint. I'm waiting to see how this project pans out, I'm terrified we'll end up with a cross between the Kilrathi in Wing Commander and the Cat Sisters out of Dominion Tank Police. That said, Jimmy C usually does produce the goods...
I cant believe someone said cat-girl before me!!! :) by misnomer	Jun 30th, 2006 11:10:14 AM

Quint...do you mean the film is 100% cgi? by Rindain	Jun 30th, 2006 11:27:56 AM
Do you mean that Cameron will not build any physical sets (even partial sets like Zack Snyder's 300)? I would assume the film would be a combination of 100% as well as partial cgi shots.
So Cameron is a fucking furry? by godoffireinhell	Jun 30th, 2006 11:32:24 AM
Does he own a fursuit yet?
Jesus Christ, folks. It's not about Cat People. by LlGHTST0RMER	Jun 30th, 2006 11:44:57 AM
That JoBlo.com article isn't exactly the most reliable source. They got a lot of info right. The main thing they screwed up is, well... THE NA'VI AREN'T CAT-PEOPLE. When you say someone is "Lithe as a cat" it's a metaphor. Duh.
No way a 315 mil film is all CG a'la Final Fantasy by modlight	Jun 30th, 2006 11:46:27 AM
Animation is cheaper than using a live set. So unless this thing is 10 hours long I doubt its all CG.
Do the Ligers have large talons? by brycemonkey	Jun 30th, 2006 12:11:41 PM
Meeeeowwww! Well played Wolack.
$315 MILLION FOR A BUNCH OF CGI??? WHAT A WASTE! by Proman1984	Jun 30th, 2006 12:12:32 PM
OF COURSE THE MOVIE STILL SOUNDS EXCITING! BUT $315 MILLION IS WAY TOO MUCH FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS!
Pff, screw Avatar, where's Aquaman? by Poacher	Jun 30th, 2006 12:14:03 PM
I want wet Mandy Moore.
Titanic numbers THANKS TO CAT PEOPLE! by RezE11even	Jun 30th, 2006 12:23:32 PM
All those neko freaks that pretend they have cat tails and shit in giant litterboxes will go see it 8 times.
$315 million only $55 million more than Superman by Rindain	Jun 30th, 2006 12:27:18 PM
And I still can't figure out where Singer spent his $260 million...the Star Wars prequels and LOTR films cost less than half as much and were packed with effects and set pieces. Basically what I'm saying is that if WB gave Singer $260 million and Fox gave Ratner $200 million, it seems reasonable to give a much better action/spectacle filmmaker like Cameron $315 million. Plus, like another talkbacker said, a big chunk of that budget will go into R&D for all the groundbreaking 3D and motion capture, which will also be used on Battle Angel and future films. So for FOX this is an investment in the future of cinema.
I don't get it by quadrupletree	Jun 30th, 2006 12:35:49 PM
Aren't ALL effects 100% digital these days? What does "100% digital" mean? Shot digitally? (ala superman and star wars) Or 100% mo-cap (ala Monster House and Polar Express) If it's a cartoon like Polar Express count me out.... for now...
Cat Scratch Fever by Shaner Jedi	Jun 30th, 2006 12:39:12 PM
Didn't Schrader already do a film like this called Cat People? Meeooww!
Avatar = Cat People 2: Digital Boogaloo by Shaner Jedi	Jun 30th, 2006 12:44:17 PM
.
AVATAR = Dances With Wolves on Deathworld by bigdickmcgee	Jun 30th, 2006 01:19:51 PM
Yes, it's derivative as hell. All of Cameron's stuff is. No, it's not a CGI movie like Shrek. I read his old scriptment, and visually it's Aliens on steroids meets the Discovery doc Alien Planet. If he films it like he wrote it, the action and visuals will blow your nuts through your skullcap. No, I'm afraid the story is not revolutionary. It's Dances With Wolves on Harry Harrison's Deathworld. That's what it is. But half the 75 page scriptment was spent describing action sequences (which I don't think will change in the final version). Human soldiers in "scorpion" gunships and those loaders that Ripley used in Aliens armed with gatling guns vs. an army of wicked-ass alien creatures, basically in an all out war for this planet. It's a 14 year old's wet dream come true. As an action movie, it's pretty fucking ambitious. As a sci-fi story.....it's a pretty fucking ambitious action movie.
Rindain by bigdickmcgee	Jun 30th, 2006 01:23:31 PM
$65 million of Superman's cost was on a dozen discarded scripts and all the preproduction that wernt with them. Not on the screen. And you should post that article you linked to on imdb (you're on the ball, dude). It's actually much more informative than what AICN has.
hehe. these cat people obsessives by aestheticity	Jun 30th, 2006 01:27:24 PM
sound like 'furries' themselves. so furry aliens is batshit nutty, but a flying strongman subtly called 'super man' isnt, nor giant smart robots that turn into things and fight. get with the program - blockbuster films are rank bullshit, and people lap them up. differentiating between different brands of screwy/childish/escapist bullshit is... actually, it's what this sites for. carry on.
New Cameron interview: AVATAR may be trilogy by Rindain	Jun 30th, 2006 01:32:25 PM
http://tinyurl.com/jl6j8 Very informative MTV article in which Cameron talks AVATAR, BATTLE ANGEL, as well as his thoughts on turning both of them into trilogies.
The Na'Vi are completely hairless by Rindain	Jun 30th, 2006 01:34:41 PM
Yes, the Na'Vi don't even have fur.
Also... by quadrupletree	Jun 30th, 2006 01:43:11 PM
I just have to say that I find it fascinating that he dumped Digital Domain and that now he's using Weta to do his effects... That's one hell of an indorsement for WETA!
Is Tom Hanks..... by BigFo	Jun 30th, 2006 01:45:58 PM
going to be mo-capped for at least 11 of the parts?
Remember when you could be surprised by a movie? by Bryan	Jun 30th, 2006 01:48:40 PM
I think it's funny that people are debating about the mythology of a movie that is not based on another source and hasn't even started shooting yet. Why should anyone know the word "Na'Vi" or what it means? It reminds me of going to see the first matinee of Lion King the day it came out and every kid in the theater said the names of the characters the first time they appeared. "Simba!"
I really hate cats. by DeCypher44	Jun 30th, 2006 02:14:54 PM
They shed. They scratch. They're always trying to walk between my feet...and their not even mine. I don't have cats. Stupid neighbor cats. Anyway, if what bigdickmcgee posted is really what the film will be about, then cool. Sounds good. And furries are the strangest "people" on the planet.
Cameron's changing the title to MAN CATS or THUNDERCATS by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 02:28:19 PM
Ebert is already giving it rave reviews... saying it's going to be CATASTIC! AND MEOWILICIOUS!... Sources say Cameron has a cattery and is trying to breed the first real man cat.... seriously though, they should just call this movie THUNDERCATS! It's not cat people... it's pronounced MAN CATS.
Hey Zarles - shut the fuck up ... by Lamerz	Jun 30th, 2006 02:48:34 PM
... with that bullshit about buying everyone a cup of soup with the budget for his movie. Maybe Hollywood should just fucking shut down and never make a movie again. Hell with all movie budgets combined they could feed an assload of people. Or wait ... maybe they could keep making movies so that not only do the studios make money, but as a side benefit pay taxes, donate money, and hire people who donate money so that governments and charities are funded and have money to give to people in Africa! What a novel fucking idea. Billions upon billions of dollars are funnelled into Africa every year by capitalistic economies. Get a fuckin clue.
cats rock by smackfu	Jun 30th, 2006 02:49:10 PM
I knew I had made the right descision the first time I saw my cat trotting through the apartment holding a full roll of toilet paper in her mouth, craning her neck back to support the weight. Also, I have it on good authority that my cat is in fact...a good kitty.
You'd think he'd want to blow shit up... by dr_buggerlugs	Jun 30th, 2006 03:19:27 PM
If Jimmy can do anything well, it's blow shit up and quite frankly it's been a long time since we saw a seriously great blow some shit up film...if you're going to spend THAT kind of money, it's because you're doing what other films can't and build lots of shit up only to blow it all up...people will go to see a film thats advertises that it's a third of a billion worth of blowing shit up...not a bloody cartoon. Sir Jimmy Cameroon (that was not a spelling mistake), I start the petition for you to put your pixels down, go into the great outdoors, find a oil refinery, a nuclear reactor or a disused football stadium and BLOW IT THE FUCK UP! I thank you.
it's time for action! by quadrupletree	Jun 30th, 2006 03:37:10 PM
I move that we vote on a new chief executive officer and oust this old creep. And also that my cat smells good and is pretty.
What is this movie about? by fortheloveofgod	Jun 30th, 2006 03:52:42 PM
Anybody?
GIANT LITHE MAN CATS, people! by Lamerz	Jun 30th, 2006 04:01:18 PM
Ya damn skippy, I'm in! Oh and Robert Patrick is a pimp. He should definitely be in this one.
TEASER POSTER FOR AVATAR!!! by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 04:31:33 PM
http://www.artitudezine.com/im ages/13_CathyMendola_CatPeople .jpg check it out... those are some hot man cats.
$315 Million Bwhahahah by monorail77	Jun 30th, 2006 04:32:02 PM
Not a chance. That would be about $100 million more than the current most expensive films (and those ones ran over their budget). Not gonna happen, I don't care who he is, he's not starting with a budget of $315 million. This, my friends, is compete B.S.
and, all motion cap? by monorail77	Jun 30th, 2006 04:33:43 PM
This sounds like a bad idea. Suddenly he's "competing" with Zemeckis (shudder)
Not $315,000,000.00 by mfbrutha	Jun 30th, 2006 04:38:58 PM
I work for Fox and have seen a lot of the figures. Budget will be around $185m give or take. Besides, Fox and the other studios are cutting back on spending lately. Cameron may think he's God, but he's not immune to the bean counters. Sorry to rain on your parade.
Hey Lamerz, buy a fuckin' clue. by Zarles	Jun 30th, 2006 04:42:08 PM
Hopefully it will cost you a lot less than $315 million. It's called sarcasm, genius. Maybe you'll learn about it in school once you're finished up with colors and shapes.
315 mill is needed to feed the massive army of MAN CATS by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 04:50:56 PM
They have to counter in costs for milk bowls, toys, scratch posts, pounds and pounds of kitty litter, mice, fancy feast kitty chow, catnip, yarn, brushes, immunization shots, vitamins, declawing for the bitchy ones, surgery for spaying and neutering so we dont have the man cats take over the world, and some hooker man cats for james cameron's 'private time' SAVE THE MAN CATS!
mfbrutha... by Rindain	Jun 30th, 2006 04:51:54 PM
The budget may still be $315 million...maybe FOX is contributing $185m, with the rest coming from other investors or from Cameron's own deep pockets. Do you know if the $185m is the total budget or just FOX's part?
I really wanna see AVATAR but by VanBoogie	Jun 30th, 2006 04:53:22 PM
his last two films were arguably his worst (Titanic &True Lies.) I'm hoping he's matured somewhat as a filmmaker because if it can finally happen to Spielberg, it can happen to this guy. Hopefully LOTR (WETA's phenomenal work aside) was a wake up call to Cameron. Something about the $315 million budget doesn't square away with me. I wouldn't call it hard sci-fi but a concept like Avatar is a much tougher sell than Titanic.
"Budget will be around $185m" by bigdickmcgee	Jun 30th, 2006 04:55:46 PM
But the actual cost will be closer to 300. Titanic was greelit with a budget of $80 million.
AVATAR by future help	Jun 30th, 2006 05:11:54 PM
Action Value And The Anal Rape (300 mil worth) it's Friday...lookin for COOL news. Superman Returns was Dull. Go Cameron! Go Raimi!
Hey Darth Kong by Quin the Eskimo	Jun 30th, 2006 05:15:33 PM
Someone named Peter involved..... by Darth Kong June 30th, 2006 ...in Master and Commander. That'd be Peter Weir right? Cool, so Peter Weir is in charge of FX on AVATAR. What next, Larry Wachowski is Costume Designer and Make Up artist? Francis Ford Coppola for Kraft Services? DON'T talk like that Francis Ford Coppola make a HELL of a macrobiotic smoothie...a HELL of a smoothie. There has NEVER been a smoothie like The FFC.
Damn it James! by alienindisguise	Jun 30th, 2006 05:16:56 PM
I understand that this is a sci fi but all digital mocap!? That's total crap! Granted Kong and Gollum do look damn good but they ain't fooling anybody into thinking their real. I'll have to see a human test since we can't be reproduced in a computer without having a case of the dead eyes. Anyony wondering what that is, just play any video game with people in it and you'll see. Looks like the CG monster may have swallowed Cameron like it did Lucas. "I'm king of the wo....chomp!"
Only 25% of Kong stuff was mo-capped.. by Darth_Inedible	Jun 30th, 2006 06:20:57 PM
Mo-cap is a buzzword that few in the industry even seem to understand.
For cryin' out loud, people, GET A REALITY CHECK... by Triumph poops!	Jun 30th, 2006 06:25:29 PM
First off, it was only a rumor about the budget being over $300 million -- and it was a bullshit one at that. Just a geek too excited about desperately wanting to get hold of SOME piece of dirt that he could immedidately send in that he botched reporting the number right. Or more likely, the person he was talking to was just fucking with him for fun. There's NO WAY that Fox is going to roll over $300 million on this movie, even if it is Cameron. And those of you citing things like SUPERMAN RETURNS need to remember that the reason it came in at $200 million is that Warners still had to declare and write off against the total cost total fubars like Tim Burton and Nicolas Cage's infamous pay or play deals where Cage ended up walking off with something like $15 million for NOT even shooting a single frame of film. As to the CG, it's clear that since this is set on an alien world and they are truly alien in appearance and the way they move, Cameron will shoot the via motion capture and render them digitially. But there obviously will be REAL human actors playing the Earth humans -- we know that because if you search the web the fucking CASTING SHEETS that went out to casting directors in town were leaked. But seriously those of you immediately pouncing on the rumor of the budget really need to come out here to Hollywood and work for a living. Trust me, as crazy as the stories get about this town...that is, about the whole process of putting a film together here and the whacked things that take place in the process...money still talks and NO executive in this town is looking to roll that kind of dice on ONE film, even if it is being made by Cameron himself coming off TITANIC. Hell, I'm sure even Cameron and his people are reading this talkback and laughing at the notion that you guys think he's actually going to spend $315 million on just one film. The ONLY way this thing could ever hit $300 million would be if Cameron pulled a Jackson ala KONG and put his own money into it and that would only occur AFTER the movie was seriously behind schedule or something OR, as someone else noted in the talback, that $300 million figure actually accounts for development costs on camera equipment and whatnot that will be next shifted over and utilized on BATTLE ANGEL -- in which case you have to shift money out of the AVATAR budget column and into the BATTLE ANGEL one to be fair. At which point the $300 million figure drops like a rock...
Didn't cameron put his own money into Titanic though? by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 06:42:04 PM
I dont see it as entirely inconcievable that he would spend 300 mill on this 'Avatar' movie... after all look at the crazy budget they spent on Titanic. This is Cameron. He's Crazy. If he's learnt anything from Titanic he's thinking 'hmmmm blow a load of money, makes lots more money'... that's probably what he's thinking about when they're talking about a budget of 300 mill for avatar. MEowwwwwwwwwww
Mr. Mystery here...about my scoop and my source by Mr. Mystery	Jun 30th, 2006 06:47:59 PM
I just reported what I heard from my source, who is a member of the crew. Now, he could be misinformed, or I could have misinterpreted what he said. I'll grant you that. But I know he mentioned Weta and $315 million, so take that for what it's worth. I know it's not much of a scoop, and that's I wrote "I admit it's not much." You guys always beotch about everything, don't you?
Mr. Mystery by Shaner Jedi	Jun 30th, 2006 06:52:30 PM
what area of production is this member of the crew in?
Mr. Mystery by Shaner Jedi	Jun 30th, 2006 06:55:57 PM
also, your source mentioned the fx supervisor of M&C heading up the effort. There were the following people: Nathan McGuiness of Asylum Stefen Fangmeier and Pablo Helman of ILM Brian Vant Hul of Weta WORKSHOP There is no Peter. Brooke Breton was the overall VFX Producer on the film. You need to talk to your source again and seek clarification.
shaner jedi = uber dork by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 06:58:00 PM
you must seek clarification young skywalker snort snort heheh
obviously the guy is full of bunk by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 06:59:13 PM
we dont need to encourage him
If he's around, I will by Mr. Mystery	Jun 30th, 2006 07:16:31 PM
It's not the type of guy I see everyday, but if I see him again, I will ask...promise. Shaner Jedi, I don't want to blow his cover, so I need to equivocate here. He works in pre-production, but not in pre-viz or anything DIRECTLY involved in filmmaking, per se. It's indirect, like people who build new cameras specifically for a production. He's that type of crew member. (BTW, he's not making new cameras. I'm just giving an example.)
Wolack22 by Mr. Mystery	Jun 30th, 2006 07:19:06 PM
No, I'm not full of bunk. If I was, I wouldn't have waited 9 whole years before sending Harry a false, made-up scoop.
THAT by Quin the Eskimo	Jun 30th, 2006 07:55:30 PM
is a lot of clams
There's no way this will reach the $300 mil mark by performingmonkey	Jun 30th, 2006 08:08:49 PM
Do you think they're insane? Just 'cause Titanic made fucket-loads of cash. I guarantee you NO other movie will make that kind of money. It just isn't possible. Anyhow, Cameron shouldn't just equal an insane overblown budget. He hasn't done anything for 10 years (well...he HAS but you know what I mean). Who would trust him with ten bucks, let alone $315 million>!?!???!
Weta is highly overrated by Razorback	Jun 30th, 2006 08:13:20 PM
Their work on KING KONG was hit and miss... and the Academy was insane to give them an Oscar.
Budget by NoteTheTrees	Jun 30th, 2006 08:15:35 PM
That kind of money is the operating budget of a small country. I thought digital technology was supposed to make visual effects ultra cheap. And why is stereoscopic 3-D so fascinating? I saw 'Aliens of the Deep;' the beginning digital effects were neat in IMAX 3-D. Then the "effect" wore off and it was dull. Thoroughly dull. And Cameron ripped of Madonna's "Ray of Light" video for the opening sequence. And why would stereoscopic, CGI, etc. make a movie like, say, 'The Godfather' any more interesting? Lest Cameron forget, he may have the highest grossing film of all time, but the Godfather was the first real blockbuster. (For those of you who will debate that 'Jaws' was really the first, the point still stands: both the 'Godfather' and 'Jaws' had limited visual effects in their own respective ways.) Good luck to Cameron, though. Discussion of the immense budgets floor me, though, especially considering the financial climate we're facing currently.
ILM did MASTER AND COMMANDER by Razorback	Jun 30th, 2006 08:19:26 PM
I know a couple of effects houses worked on elements, but it was an ILM project.
what is Avatar about, anyway? Seriously I have no idea by ScienceMan	Jun 30th, 2006 08:43:46 PM
Sorry, I just don't have time to follow all the news here or do an in-depth search. Could someone post a quick "just the facts" synopsis of the story, without your opinion of whether or not it sucks? thanks in advance.
No way budget is $315 million. by Rupee88	Jun 30th, 2006 08:56:34 PM
#1 It just isn't true...bad reporting or bad rumor..whatever. #2 I'd love an all CGI James Cameron movie. Someone needs to make an all CGI superhero movie and this would be a step in the right direction.
Scienceman... it's about MAN CATS... the end by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 09:14:48 PM
That's all you need to know, it's set in the future, and there are these race of beings that look like CATS... this is Cameron's ace in the sleeve... GIANT MAN CATS!!! I'm serious.
apparently the world is polluted and stuff too.. by wolack22	Jun 30th, 2006 09:17:38 PM
and it focuses on a love story between MAN CATS... that's the factz, the quick synopsis you wanted... does it make you drool like you did for titanic or terminator? .............................. ...HELL YES!!! GIANT FREAKING MAN CATS!! HAHAHAHA
"The Godfather was the first real blockbuster." by Triumph poops!	Jun 30th, 2006 10:04:25 PM
Actually, it wasn't. Blockbusters have existed as long as the movies have. What defines a blockbuster? If you're talking something that's a major HIT relative to everything else that's around it...be it other movies or any other thing that people could be spending disposable income on...as I said, blockbusters have ALWAYS existed. The original black and white KING KONG was a certifiable blockbuster. It cost only a dime to see at the time, but it literally was the STAR WARS of its day and had lines around the block at Radio City Music Hall waiting for a chance to get in and see it -- so much so that they had to run the film 24 hours a day at its initial debut. The JAZZ SINGER introducing the advent of sound was a blockbuster that blew away the competition and reaped Warner Bros a fortune. And if you're talking blockbuster in terms of sheer profit, long before there was a GODFATHER or JAWS or STAR WARS, adjusted for inflation, I believe GONE WITH THE WIND is still technically the all-time box office champ, beating out even TITANIC. Even if that doesn't quite work out numerically, the point was GONE WITH THE WIND, back when it premiered, was a fucking HUGE deal to the general public.
well? do ya? by thebearovingian	Jun 30th, 2006 10:37:11 PM
The real question is: Do I have bugs in my effects system? Even after I've spent 315 million greenbacks? And if so, was it worth it? And if it was, will I ever love again?
thanks Wolack22... So, Thundercats, Ho! I guess? by ScienceMan	Jul 1st, 2006 12:31:35 AM
Wow. That's entirely underwhelming. Thanks for the synopsis. I am writing a screenplay about zombie sharks. Zombie sharks take over the world, and humans have to team up with velociraptors to fight them off. Oh, and they bring back Mark Twain from the dead to give them pithy advice and wry political commentary. It'll be a CGI extravaganza that will be the Star Wars for the current young generation. Cameron can direct it for $400 million. It will rule. And my wife is a copyright attorney, so don't any of you bitches steal my killer idea! Zombie sharks... remember, you heard it here first. MANCATS, indeed. I guess it's good to hear Lion-O will be working again. But what about the Silverhawks? Or the Bionic 6? Where is there multimillion dollar SFX bonanza? There ain't no justice.
no mancats, kids by bigdickmcgee	Jul 1st, 2006 12:49:19 AM
More like Jar Jar Binks with blue skin sans the Jamaican accent. Actually, I hear Cameron is doing a live action Thundarr the Barbarian!!!!! Okay, I just made that up. But it sounds kinda cool. Ookla the Mok? Come on.
Blockbuster by NoteTheTrees	Jul 1st, 2006 12:50:55 AM
Okay, nevermind about my ignorance regarding blockbusters and status. I'm only responding because evidently my entire post strayed away from my real point. My point is technology, for me, doesn't make a movie. But, obviously, who gives a fuck about what folks like me think? As long as I make incorrect assertions regarding box office, my whole argument becomes moot. You're absolutely right, 'Gone With The Wind' is the highest grossing film. It was fucking huge! I'm an idiot. I have some knee-jerk, ignorant animous towards seeing people spend disposable income on big entertainment. Like I said, good luck to Mr. Cameron. I'm sure his film will make $3 billion. As it stands for me, I'll take 'The Godfather' (yes, 'The Godfather' was fairly expensive to produce) over a $300 million movie with a ship that makes sound in space. I'm done posting on this story.
ScienceMan by bigdickmcgee	Jul 1st, 2006 12:52:42 AM
Your zombie shark idea has been done - Deep Blue Sea. Well, they weren't really zombies, more like mutants. May I suggest taking more of an Evil Dead approach, and having sharks possessed by sumerian demons. A lifeguard gets both his hands bitten off....so he attaches a chainsaw to one stump and....wait a minute....I gotta call my agent!
The Na'vi have tails. Therefore ... by godoffireinhell	Jul 1st, 2006 12:55:10 AM
they must be cats. The end.
Scienceman, your Zombie Sharks need one more thing... by Triumph poops!	Jul 1st, 2006 01:21:53 AM
They have to have frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
The Zombie Sharks are 300 feet long and fly... by ScienceMan	Jul 1st, 2006 02:37:10 AM
... but that is not the only reason they are so scary. See, they were unleashed by a super-science experiment when the military tried to unleash some quantum power bullshit from the center of the Earth's core. Naturally, they unleashed hideous zombie sharks that terrorized the planet millions of years ago. In primeval times, there was a giant war between the giant sharks and the dinosaurs. Oh, and giant ants, too. The ants and dinosaurs weren't able to defeat the sharks, but they were able to trap them in a multi-dimensional prison in the center of the planet (not at all similar to the magic mirror the Zod and his cronies were imprisoned by in Supes 2). Anyhoo, now in the present day this ancient evil is unleashed by the foolish humans. But millions of years of imprisonment in the Earth's molten core has turned them into GIANT ZOMBIE SHARKS. How? Who cares! They also have giant pterodactyl-style wings and tentacles that shoot out of their gills, and they hover over cities and the tentacles grab people and suck them into the belly of the giant flying zombie shark, and then the giant flying zombie shark turns the people into human zombies and VOMITS them back out onto the ground, to terrorize the remaining unzombified humans. The human zombies obey all standard zombie genre rules; they don't run fast, desire brains, and are most effective en masse. California is the last bastion of civilization, where humans and velociraptors and giant intelligent ants team up to fight the zombie sharks and their zombie hordes. Basically, that's the set-up for my story. Screenplay, half-hour cartoon on Adult Swim, graphic novels - I'm shooting for the whole nine yards. And ten years ago, I wrote a pilot for a primitive CGI children's show that was actually shot and starred the voices of Gary Coleman, Pam Grier, and Clancy Brown. A few fuzzy VHS copies are all that remains now of proof that such diverse talent was ever gathered under the same recording studio roof once long ago on Melrose Ave. Shit, I should send Harry a copy of the pilot. It's true geek otaku impossible-to-find wackiness. It includes a clip of Clancy, off-script, claiming that Pam Grier drinks her own piss. Never figured out exactly what he meant by that. I should probably copy that tape and sell it on eBay. But I digress.... cats suck. Dogs rule.
Gun, with Occasional Music by turk128	Jul 1st, 2006 02:56:39 AM
If Cameron's gonna make a furry flic, I rather he made Jonathan Lethem's "Gun, with Occasional Music" instead of this really bland and generic sounding Avatar.
Mr. Mystery, please answer this! by Nazgul9	Jul 1st, 2006 03:29:02 AM
Please, can you tell us whether Avatar will be CGI animated or life action. Thank you!
Cameron Furry Flick by godoffireinhell	Jul 1st, 2006 03:29:49 AM
Nope, he should film Po-Ju's CONDENSED JUICE. http://tinyurl.com/euk63
Cameron said it himself... by Mr Brownstone	Jul 1st, 2006 03:36:49 AM
The humans will be live action and the aliens mo-cap.
More like meow-cap by godoffireinhell	Jul 1st, 2006 03:49:41 AM
amirite?
yeah yeah too much money blablah by CuervoJones	Jul 1st, 2006 04:20:56 AM
People said the same shit about Titanic...
As if a sci-fi furry flick will by godoffireinhell	Jul 1st, 2006 04:40:24 AM
make even half as much money at the box office as TITANIC did. Something like that happens once every couple decades. It was purely because every 12 year old girl went to see it 20+ times. Not even the most nerdy geeks will go see AVATAR that often.
Let me clear this up by Bobo_Vision	Jul 1st, 2006 05:18:37 AM
The scoop says that there are 2000 effects shots in all, so that means the movie is not going to be entirely CGI like 'Final Fantasy'. 100% digital means it will be shot digital like the Star Wars prequels or like 'Once Upon a Time in Mexico'.
300 million for a feline galactic CGI epic? by Spacesheik	Jul 1st, 2006 06:03:18 AM
pass the weed love, pass the weed
But then what did Quint mean with "real life"? by Nazgul9	Jul 1st, 2006 06:05:25 AM
I'm quoting: "However, and it may just be me, I am a little sad to hear Cameron going 100% digital. I love good mo-cap work just as much as the next guy, but Cameron's eye for capturing real life has been very important to my movie geek up-bringing." Is he just mourning that there won't be more old-school practical effects or what? Doesn't sound like that to me. I'm confused. QUINT, PLEASE ELABORATE!!!
I don't have depth perception by judderman	Jul 1st, 2006 07:46:47 AM
Got an eye operation as a kid; took it away. The only difference between a 2D and a 3D movie for me is that I have to wear stupid glasses in 3D movies just to see the picture. If Cameron has his way, I will have to wear stupid glasses to ALL movies. So right now I am not harbouring much goodwill toward him.
Damn. I'm gonna feel so damn superior... by Killah_Mate	Jul 1st, 2006 08:08:55 AM
...when this movie comes out and rakes in three times its budget. You fucking furry-obsessed naysayers.
Those screening will be pretty special!! by godoffireinhell	Jul 1st, 2006 09:53:42 AM
Everybody wearing fursuits and 3D goggles and having gay sex, furpiles in the aisles ... It'll be something for the history books!
100% Digital by obidawsn	Jul 1st, 2006 12:12:59 PM
We know that this film will be shot in digital. Cameron wanted to make a 3D movie using his fancy digital camera. I took 100% Digital as meaning that all the effects will be digital. There won't be any animatronics or stop-motion work. All the FX will be done digitally. I'm sure there will be some real life stuff. This will be the movie he will try and use to push his camera's technology
I'll pay to see ANY movie that's made by James Cameron. by JDanielP	Jul 1st, 2006 01:58:07 PM
He's passionate about his work, putting every bit of his heart and soul into every picture he makes. I don't need to know anything more than the fact that James Cameron is directing. He never fails me. Is it too early to purchase a ticket?
$315 million is actually not that much by Lord_Soth	Jul 1st, 2006 02:07:52 PM
Everybody knows that cats are expensive to train to do proper motion capture, so come on!
Weta was the effects house by emeraldboy	Jul 1st, 2006 03:03:56 PM
x-men 3!!!! A cgi film about cats. Ill believe it when I see it.
ITS ALL GOOD BUT... by gonzobob	Jul 1st, 2006 05:23:45 PM
Going completely digital without the aid of any real acting talent?, I dunno. Still, its good to hear the KING OF THE WORLD is back making a proper movie. Happy days indeed.
Hey Zarles - STFU again ... by Lamerz	Jul 1st, 2006 05:43:11 PM
Trying to cover your shit up ... whateva. It ain't your fuckin money, and it ain't your fuckin ego, so what are you so worried about? Jealous?
God, you guys can be so clueless... by slapshot	Jul 1st, 2006 05:44:17 PM
"Bugs" in the system refers to WETA. The "weta" is a bug native to New Zealand. Please do at least try to keep up... (Also, I have no doubt that this movie will cost over $300 million; according to EW, Superman Returns final budget including worldwide prints and advertising is somewhere north of $360 million. Avatar is more FX intensive, and Cameron always goes over budget. Plus, don't forget about his 3D digital projection plans. Part of this amount may be funneled into upgrading theaters; right now, there's about 200 screens in the US capable of screening it.)
"It's too much money!!" by Lamerz	Jul 1st, 2006 05:45:12 PM
Get over yourselves. You know who you are. Stop trying to make decisions for everyone else. Cameron is gonna do what the fuck he gotta do to make a great movie.
2000 shots for $315M? by Cabron	Jul 1st, 2006 10:41:06 PM
That's $150,000 per shot. It better look good.
Wait A Minute X-Men 3 Was $215 Million? by Alex Douchepot	Jul 2nd, 2006 02:02:53 AM
What the FUCK did they spend it on?????
I can only assume that 100% digital... by Reelheed	Jul 2nd, 2006 03:00:20 AM
means that every shot is going to include some sort of effect or composite. Which sounds quite random. Or that the whole film will be shot on 3DHD. I mean it cant be CG because why would you bother with the expansive casting calls? Just hire Andy Serkis...
Polar Express had Tom Hanks by Nazgul9	Jul 2nd, 2006 03:40:08 AM
and the way Quint writes about it this sounds awfully a lot like it'll be a "mo-cap" movie in the same vein as Polar Express, with actors being painted over and used for reference. Hope i'm wrong though...
READ THE POSTS, GUYS. YOUR QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED by LlGHTST0RMER	Jul 2nd, 2006 06:02:31 AM
Jesus. Here are the facts, people: 1) AVATAR will NOT be 100% CGI / Mo-Cap. Like many people have pointed out, there have already been myriad casting calls for real actors to play roles. OK? No Polar Express here. And while Cameron himself has pioneered some of the greatest digital effects in film history, I do also kind of doubt he will refuse the use of a simple practical effect if he can do it. I mean, he is the film's producer, after all. If he can do a practical effect or an optical effect for less than a totally digital one and still get the shot he wants, he may just go ahead and do it. 2) The Avatars, the Na'vi and the creatures on Pandora (the planet where the movie takes place) might well be all motion-capture performances - he really took a shining to Square's work on Final Fantasy and, of course, The LOTR films, so I'm thinking it's likely. 3) You could say the movie itself is being SHOT 100% digitally (not animated) as Cameron has retired from celluloid. He has created an entirely new, ultra-diverse camera that can shoot just about any form of Digital that exists, including Stereoscopic (yes, 3D) High-Def. The immense budget likely reflects the need for R&D that the project will require. This is the first major motion picture shot in CameronVision (uh... don't worry, that's my term,) so it will take considerable cash to keep things moving on the movie. Yes, even all the "bean-counters at Fox" will approve of Cameron's crazy tactics as long as he still delivers his legendary Cameron results. Although, in all honesty, everyone's right when they say JC's guaranteed to go over-budget no matter how much he's given up front, so I do also doubt that the starting budget is $315, but that's just my hunch. 4) The Na'vi are much more reptilian than anything else, least of all feline. They have human features and scaly, purple skin. I know Jim has said he's reworked a lot of the late 90's scriptment, (so a lot of our assumptions and preconceptions may already be outdated,) but if he hasn't altered the Na'vi's design / description, then that's what we'll be getting. And I can PROMISE YOU they will not be Cat People. I don't even think Cameron likes cats. 5) {{{SPOILER TERRITORY}}} The movie is about a government-run operation (paid for by greedy, large, Earth-based corporations,) where people are recruited to leave Earth, which by then has an entirely demolished Ecosystem, and sent to a planet in the Alpha Centauri system which is completely uninhabitable for humans, but they are colonizing it anyway. The humans communicate with the Na'vi (the inhabitants of the planet) by making beings that are 50% genetically human and %50 genetically Na'vi. These creatures are controlled by the people who have been recruited to operate their bodies via a neural link (yeah, kinda Matrixy, but Jim wrote this before Neo ever came to be, so give him a little credit before you slash him up for that one.) The operators (namely Josh, the main character) get used to their Avatar bodies and their Avatar lives, they befriend the Na'vi, become part of their clan, and then have to make the choice later which side they will choose to fight for when the violent, greedy humans running the operation decide to declare war on them because they figure it's easier to conquer than adapt. Hopefully, that describes the story without giving away too much. 6) Yes, the Dances With Wolves comparison is unavoidable. But at least DWW was a good movie to steal from. It ain't like he's making "Little Nicky on Mars." 7) Anchorite is a jackass. Always.
AVATAR by kwisatzhaderach	Jul 2nd, 2006 08:35:01 AM
A new Jim Cameron sci-fi movie on the way. Doubters beware!!!
The End of Celluloid by PurityOfEssence	Jul 2nd, 2006 01:18:52 PM
isn't that one of the biblical signs of the Apoclypse. I kid...
re: brycemonkey by beamish13	Jul 2nd, 2006 01:33:17 PM
err, rotoscoping has been around for decades.
Lightstormer by Shaner Jedi	Jul 2nd, 2006 02:28:22 PM
"he really took a shining to Square's work on Final Fantasy" Are you serious? My interest in this project just went down alot. That was one of the most "let's do it because we can, not because we have to" bullshit excercises I've seen. BTW, The Polar Express cast real actors for the roles in that film too, yet it was all mo-cap. Bleh. This stinks.
Shaner, here's some good news for you: by LlGHTST0RMER	Jul 2nd, 2006 04:57:56 PM
You don't HAVE to see the movie. If you think it'll be stupid just because Cameron likes advancing technologies in other movies, then fine. Stay at home and watch your Dr. Who DVDs when the flick comes out.
Love Love Love by Saluki	Jul 2nd, 2006 05:37:51 PM
Love how a little crowd of boys around here like playing dressup Producer, talking about budgets for James Fuckin' Cameron. Or how they want to play like they won't be there opening night with the rest of us. Pretending is fun!
Lightstormer by Shaner Jedi	Jul 2nd, 2006 06:05:52 PM
I thought you said it wasn't all mo-cap? Then you say he dug Final Fantasy, which was all-CG. And yeah, if "advancing technologies" means like Zemeckis and his Polar Express toys set in space, then yeah, I will stay home....or better yet, go see a real fucking film.
Final Fantasy was great by Rupee88	Jul 2nd, 2006 06:41:38 PM
It had kind of a lame story, but visually it was delicious. It's too bad that the public doesn't like sci-fi for the most part and it flopped so badly. They should make most superhero films with all CGI and they'd be a lot better than the results they are getting now. What takes so much time and money is the compositing and matching of the digital elements with the optical ones. But making Spidey move through a total CGI world would be much easier. And you could definitely do better action scenes. But the public seems to view CGI with derision, considering all the bitching about the Matrix and Hulk work, so I guess all CGI is lmited to kiddie films for the forseeable future.
Rupee88 by Shaner Jedi	Jul 2nd, 2006 07:47:50 PM
The public is just spoiled on CG, that's why. There's too much of it and it makes people jaded and blaise about the whole thing. It's even worse when they get a "well, those people are kinda real but their faces creep me out" vibe from the whole thing, like Polar Express. I'm sorry, but I'm just not impressed by all mo-cap films. And they end up costing as much or more than live action anyway because of the R+D involved. Cameron has already sunk some change into his proprietary pipeline for it. Sure, he'll be able to spread the cost across two films, but that's if they recoup what sounds like astronomical budgets.
Actually, it is being spread across six films... by Saluki	Jul 2nd, 2006 10:01:10 PM
... Cameron is talking about making a trilogy out of Avatar and Battle Angel. Can't wait. The more Cameron, the better.
Actually, it'll be all of Cameron's films. by LlGHTST0RMER	Jul 3rd, 2006 05:18:03 AM
He's said he's only going to shoot using his cameras from here on out. If he wants all his movies to be 3D (which is likely,) they will be. If he wants them to be IMAX films, they can be, and all shot with the same camera. So it's not just Battle Angel and Avatar, it's every movie he makes for the rest of his life... or until he develops another new kind of camera.
And Shaner... by LlGHTST0RMER	Jul 3rd, 2006 05:21:41 AM
...I'm curious to know if there's anything about special effects that you do like. It seems you have either no interest or no support for visual effects in general. Either that or you just feel like complaining a lot, because that's all I'm really getting from your posts. What would you like out of movies these days anyway?
Cameron always pushes the VFX department. Gotta love'm by JDanielP	Jul 3rd, 2006 09:55:07 AM
It's funny how people react. And all I can do is grin. The King of the Hollywood World is back in action and I can hardly wait to see the results. Passion and talent are a great mix, especially in the genres that I enjoy so much. (heh,heh)
Lightstormer... by Shaner Jedi	Jul 3rd, 2006 11:29:12 AM
if from my comments about disliking the look of FF and Polar Express, you think I dislike all vfx, I must wonder how much you know about vfx at all. I was talking specifically about using mo cap for ALL of the actors. But that's not what Cameron is doing so all is good. BTW, I don't think it will be WETA.
Er, maybe $215 million. Now...I expect it to go over.. by R.C. the "Wise"	Jul 3rd, 2006 05:26:14 PM
budget and possibly reach $300 million. Especially, considering both Batman Begins and Superman Returns were originally greenlighted at $180 million each but ended up costing (pre-marketing/prints) $210 and $260 million respectively. Hell, only Spider-Man 3 and Transformers have received a higher initial greenlight budget. Both films have been given a pre-planned budget of $250 million each. One thing about Cameron though, ...it will look remarkable...groundbreaking.
I suppose them that the proper title is ACATAR. by drompter	Jul 3rd, 2006 11:52:29 PM

Who cares how much it costs? Are we all studio execs? by Druganaut	Jul 4th, 2006 07:58:22 AM
It's got man-cats in it - I'm in the queue! Seriously though, we need Cameron doing massive action again. I haven't been blown away by an ENTIRE action movie for years. Bring Avatar and Battle Robot on and restore our faith in spectacle. AND hopefully he'll take down some execs so we can all get jobs...
You're actually wrong about WETA by 1hounsfield	Aug 13th, 2006 02:21:02 PM
Harry, Love the site and am a fan. I wanted to let you know though, that you are wrong about WETA's motion capture. WETA doesn't own their own mo-cap software, nor do they have motion capture of their own. They use software written and source coded from and by an Atlanta based company called Giant Studios. I know you guys pride yourselves at uncovering the truth, even if it is about a company that you cherish and have a decent relationship with. I know you'll find this is the truth. Scratch beneath the surface, ask a few questions, and you'll find I'm correct. Giant have the only real time motion capture system, providing real time character generated images for the director and crew to see. Allowing the director to make real time motion capture and animation decisions, instead of waiting days or weeks for the mo-cap to render. And you're wrong about Gollum also. Giant did the mo-cap for him as well. [Not the face, just the body.] Scratch below the surface, and you'll find that Giant was in New Zealand. Giant Studios wrote the software beginning in the 80's, starting the millions of lines of code that now exist making it the ONLY software based real time motion capture system good enough for motion picture industry. This is a case of a small company who happened to write a program early on, that would be the best in the business, but to have the credit taken by the big guns. It's about to change. You can research and break the story, or wait for it to break later this year. Break it will, either way. Yours in uncovering the truth, R

Talkbacks

Does Cameron's AVATAR have some bugs in its effects system?

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks