Guys, give me a fucking break with all this "Jim, get the writing straight first and then worry about your little 3D silliness" bullshit. Why in God's name do so many of you think that the quality of the movie is an either/or? You can have cool 3D and spectacle OR you can have a well-written script with good characters and a suspenseful plot. What the fuck? To paraphrase Cameron's own writing, "Did IQs just drop sharply while he was away?" Do you really think the man simply forgot how to write a good script or make a good film?

I know I don't know any of you people here personally, and it's really not my style to start an attack on a talkback, but guys, seriously: Shut. The Fuck. Up. When you've so much as made a single movie that breaks even, let alone breaks records, or when someone ever uses your screenwriting as reference material for script writing articles or textbooks, or when you ever make any kind of film project that somebody heralds as a groundbreaking achievement in cinema, maybe then you could talk to Cameron as somebody even approaching the possibility of being the man's peer.

You know why people joke about Cameron being God? Because next to him, the rest of us don't know shit. Even people who HAVE gone on to great success as filmmakers still can't touch Cameron at the level he's playing the game. So, while you're free to criticize and talk as much shit as you like based on your thoughts of his work, or what you perceive the merits of Avatar might or might not be, or even the "pointlessness" in the "gimmick" known as 3D, keep in mind, he's more on top of this than pretty much anyone else in the business. The REAL business, I mean; not just the armchair film hater industry. Please don't make me vomit by deluding yourselves into thinking you could actually "talk down" to the man.

(Original URL: www.thestar.com/article/332146 )

At least 10,000 theatres to be converted to the digital technology

Mar 11, 2008 08:40 AM RYAN NAKASHIMA The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES–Hollywood took a big step Tuesday toward offering more movies in 3-D, announcing deals to convert as many as 10,000 more theatre screens for the digital technology needed to accommodate the resurgent, eye-popping format.

Access Integrated Technologies Inc. said it had reached agreements with four studios – Disney, News Corp.'s 20th Century Fox, Viacom Inc.'s Paramount, and Universal Pictures, which is owned by General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal – to finance and equip the screens in the U.S. and Canada during the next three years.

The conversion will cost as much as $700 million, said Bud Mayo, chief executive of Access Integrated Technologies, which completed a first tranche of 3,700 digital conversions in October.

Hollywood is anxious to convert as many theaters as possible to the digital format, which provides sharper images while eliminating the need for expensive celluloid film. It also allows theater companies to offer live events and shows from other venues.

The digital technology can also be used to show 3-D movies with the addition of software and hardware costing about $25,000 per year for each screen.

"Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert," a 3-D movie, pulled in $31.3 million in its opening weekend, an impressive feat because it played on only 683 screens, compared with many wide-release films that open on more than 3,000 screens and make half as much.

"We were in as many locations as we could possibly get," said Chuck Viane, president of distribution for Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. "If there were 3,000 3-D screens available, would we have played them all? Yeah, I think we would.''

Even "Chicken Little," the first ever animated 3-D movie released in November 2005, made $23,864 per screen, compared with $10,949 for the 2-D version. At least 30 more 3-D movies are in the pipeline from Hollywood, including this summer's adaptation of Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth.''

Thus far, about 4,000 screens – just 10 percent of the estimated 38,000 screens in the U.S. and Canada – have been outfitted with digital technology.Only about 1,040 of those screens are now outfitted to show 3-D movies.

Interest in 3-D has come and gone since the 1950s, but studios began to take the format seriously again after a 3-D version of 2004's "The Polar Express" from Warner Bros. grossed more than $45 million.

A number of high-profile filmmakers now have 3-D projects in the works, including James Cameron and Tim Burton.

Box office figures have shown the submersive effect of 3-D can attract two to three times more moviegoers who are willing to pay as much as $3 more per ticket, Crum said.

Along with digital projection, today's 3-D technology makes use of polarized lenses rather than the flimsy red and green cardboard cutouts of the past that could cause nausea and headaches.

In October, Access Integrated Technologies completed a two-year effort to retrofit multiplex screens at a cost of nearly $280 million – about $75,000 per screen. AccessIT is recouping the cost from studios over the next 10 years. Meanwhile, theater chains are ponying up as much as $25,000 a year per screen to technology firm REAL D for the software, physical upgrades and maintenance that makes it possible to show 3-D movies.

The current dearth of screens has caused some short-term kinks. The 3-D concert movie featuring U2 took in only $4.8 million because the tail end of its run was trampled by the Hannah Montana juggernaut, which took up most of the available 3-D screens.

DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. said last month it pushed back the release of its "How to Train Your Dragon" by four months to March 2010 to avoid competing for 3-D screens with James Cameron's hotly anticipated feature film "Avatar.'' The logjam has only ramped up the pressure to cut deals.

A second financing vehicle called Digital Cinema Implementation Partners was formed last March by the three largest theater exhibitors, Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Entertainment Inc. and Cinemark Holdings Inc. with plans to outfit their 14,500 theaters with digital technology.

So in other words, the super-rich Hollywood elite will have access to this new tech and nobody else will be able to afford it; Zemeckis, Cameron, Spielberg and all the other Hollywood royalty will radically distort the expectations of a generation of kids who will grow up thinking every movie they see needs to look like five kinds of LSD... thus ensuring that Hollywood becomes even more of a bloated capitalist monstrosity than it already is. and guaranteeing the exclusion of filmmakers who aren't in the millionaire's club with the excuse that their work isn't profitable enough to distribute.

On an James Cameron related note, I just found out that Michael Biehn wasn't originally cast as Hicks in Aliens. It was James Remar from "The Warriors" and "48HRS", and he shot a week of footage as Hicks and then was either fired or quit.

I was responding to posts using double arrows to quote, then respond. But that removed my responses when they posted. FUCK!

Dickus and Double J, I have to re-write all that shit now. Back in a few minutes...

--"So, following your line of reasoning, the fact that none of us here has sold a million CDs precludes us from having the opinion that Britney Spears is, in fact, crap?" -- No, I specifically did not say that. I said people are free to criticize the guy's work all they like, but characterizing him as being stupid for not sharing your sensibilities for the job is retarded if you don't even HAVE THE JOB. (And I mean "you" in the general sense of everyone in this TB, not you specifically, Biggie.) You don't have to BE a big filmmaker to dislike one. Just don't treat one like he's a fool for doing things his way when you don't even know how to DO his job.

--"Part of what makes him a genius is obsession, which in this instance, I feel is misdirected."-- I agree with the genius/obssession sentiment; I think it might be that way for all geniuses. And I applaud you for your fair-minded assessment that he may be "misdirected" with the 3D thing. But me, I just have faith in the guy to knock Avatar completely out of the park, as he has with all the movies he's made. There's a reason he's been my favorite filmmaker since I was 17 (I'm almost 32 now,) and his record, in my eyes, is flawless. Why should this project be any different? However, I have no way to prove you're wrong. Who knows? In a year and a half, when the movie comes out, maybe you'll be convinced and I'll be underwhelmed. I hope not. I hope we both love the shit out of it. Until then, my faith in him remains.

--"Hey, it's just my opinion, fella, don't take it to heart!"--

Not taking it to heart. I’m just glad you're sharp enough to know I don't hate everyone who disses the Mighty JC, but I'm tired of people disrespecting him when they can't even grasp the level at which he works. You're cool, though. Any fan of Monty Python is a friend of mine. ;-)

It won Top Honors from the American Cinema Editors, American Society of Cinematographers, The Art Directors Guild, The British Society of Cinematographers, The Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards, The National Board of Review, and The PGA Awards.

It won Best Picture Awards in Norway, Japan, Germany, England, France and Mexico.

It won 10 BAFTA Awards, including Best Film and the David Lean Award for Direction.

It won 8 DGA Awards, 4 Golden Globes, 2 People's Choice Awards (Favorite Dramatic Motion Picture and Favorite Motion Picture.)

At The Oscars, it was nominated for 14 Awards (tying with Ben-Hur for the most ever,) and it won 11 of them, including, again, Best Director and Best Picture.

Plus it was the first movie to make $600 million domestically, and the first to make a Billion Dollars in its theatrical run, nearly making $2 Billion before it was done. And Jim himself made over $150 million from the movie before it was even released on video.

Yeah. What a stupid mistake THAT movie was....

...On the 10th day of Awards Season James Cameron did recieve,

10 BAFTA Awards!

8 DGAs, 4 Golden Globes 2 People's Choice and a David Lean Award for Direction

Okay, but... you knew that going into it, didn't you? If you're allergic to french fries, don't go to McDonalds! ;-)

No movie is going to satisfy everyone. Look at AICN Talkbacks... full of comic book geeks and movie geeks posting hundreds of messages every day about how much we dislike all the movies made from comic books. And yet most of the chick flick crowd loved Titanic. Funny, ain't it?

All that action and spectacle don't write itself.

--"I think some people just have a really hard time dealing with people who are ridiculously successful at everyting they put their hand to... Meanwhile the rest of us get the well-characterised, tightly plotted hi-tech kick ass films we all want, so it's win win."--

Yeah, I always wondered why it seems people get hated on just for being successful or well-liked. I think it's something about the one being at the top of the hill only has people either looking up to him, or trying to take him down. That didn't used to be a problem for Cameron... I only recently noticed actual, genuine geek "hate" for movies like Aliens, The Abyss or the Terminator films; movies which I thought were part of the 10 Commandments of Geekdom: "Thou shall not hate on any Sci Fi films made by James Cameron." But these kids today, I tell ya... no respect for the classics.

Sure, not every movie seems right for the technology (though Cameron's comments in the Variety article were food for thought,) but again, it's not an either/or. It's not like the studios won't make character dramas or smart comedies after they start making 3D extravaganzas. They know enough to keep making movies to hit every demographic. Now, whether or not those demos are serviced well with the movies they produce, that's always hard to say. But I've been saying "all the new movies suck" since about 1991 or so, and I thought the majority of the films that came out since then were crap. But I look back on it now, and there are a ton of movies that were made throughout the 90's that I think are some of the best of all time. And most were probably better than a lot of the films released in this decade.

My point is this: There will ALWAYS be good movies and bad movies. Any movie that you see, you should probably just expect the worst but hope for the best, and hopefully, you'll at least get your money's worth. And if 3D isn't your thing, that's fine. If you don't want to spend the money on it, you shouldn't. But what about this: If you go out and spend the money to go see a movie at the theatre, and you come out saying, "The 3D was cool, but the movie stank," at LEAST you got SOMETHING for the money you spent. If you saw it in 2D and it sucked, it just sucked. If you were one of the "ooh ahh" people in the 3D theatre, at least you could say that much for it.

Anyway, I hope you keep an open mind. And I hope, like you, more movies come out that are worth seeing in any format, in 3 dimensions or otherwise.

Variety: "We've only just seen an all-digital pipeline come into being."

Cameron: "I've been doing it since 2001."

I confess I have a man-crush on Cameron.

Oh and forget about 3-D.

He continued to lay the groundwork for the (first) digital revolution for film in the 90's with True Lies, Titanic, and Strange Days. And by the end of the decade, we had seen some landmarks of cinematic spectacle with Jurassic Park, The Matrix, Forrest Gump, ID4, and yes, even The Phantom Menace. And at this point, there are ZERO big-money, high-concept films that DON'T use digital effects. They are commonplace, and they have evolved so much that every major filmmaker relies on them in order to make their movies.

So, what if AICN was around when Jim was making The Abyss or T2? What if people chimed in by the truckload screaming, "What's with this digital shit?? Just make a good friggin' movie! As long as the story is good, the movie will be good enough! Stop wasting your time!"

If he hadn't gone the lengths that he went to in order to do things his way, those movies would NOT have been the same, the bar would not have been raised, and movies today would not nearly be at the quality they are (and yes, some are pretty good. Not all, of course, but some are worth all the money we've spent to buy the DVDs.) Seriously... would Peter Jackson have been able to make the Lord of the Rings Trilogy if Cameron hadn't pushed the envelope a decade before?

And in response to your response, I have to admit I can see your point after all, but I just wasn't thinking of it in that perspective when I read your post. I thought you were just one of those many "experts" who call Cameron out as a bad writer because they think all that matters is dialogue, and the rest of the movie just seems to "happen" by itself. I see now that's not what you were saying.

Suggestion, though: If it's still available somewhere on the internet(s) and if you haven't read it before, try to find Jim's script called "A Crowded Room." (I believe it has already been mentioned on this talkback once or twice.) It's a script he wrote post-Titanic about a real life guy named Billy Milligan who suffered from multiple personality disorder, and was tried for a murder he committed under one of his other personalities. It was small scale, and almost written like a stageplay more than a movie in certain scenes. No helicopter chaces, no cyborgs, all character, and it was GOOD. SO good. I can't recall if the dialogue was cringe-worthy or spectacular - it's been about 8 years since I last read it, but I remember reading it pretty much from the first page to the last in one sitting.

Unfortunately, the real Billy Milligan was too much of a hassle to deal with in the development process, so Cameron took himself and his script off the project, and now it'll likely never be made. But what he wrote was fantastic.

Anyway, apologies if I came off as cocky or dismissive to your post. I'm starting to look like way too much of a know-it-all on this board, so I should probably tone it down a little. Good talking with you, hiro.

But I don't think David Mamet's dialogue is better than James Cameron's.

Yeah, I said it.

Cameron's dialogue isn't great, it's better than great, it's brilliant. And every single one of his films has brilliant, funny, and very memorable lines. How many films are more quotable than ALIENS? Than TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY? Whenever somebody says that Cameron's dialogue "sucks", it's obvious that they don't know anything about screenwriting.

And the structure of his screenplays is perfection.

Doesn't one (or all) of us eventually bring up the comments William Goldman made about Titanic at Oscar time? ;-)

When you think about it, was there so much of the dialogue in the film that was so bad outside of the Jack & Rose lovey-dovey silliness? ("Jack... this is where we first met!") Or the tight-assed 1st class passengers? ("Freud? Who is he? Is he a passenger?") I think the rest of the cast largely had fairly serviceable lines that weren't nearly so over the top.

"Forget it, boyo. You'd as like have angels fly out of your arse than get next to the likes of her."

"This ship can't sink!" "She's made of iron, sir. I assure you she can."

(Old Rose, when she sees the drawing on TV) "I'll be goddamned!" "You're crazy!" "That's what everybody says. But with all due respect, miss, I'm not the one hanging off the back of a ship."

So, all right, there's a lot more to quote from Aliens, or Terminator. Myself, I could quote lines from The Abyss all day long (more for my own amusment,) but I'm just saying I think a lot of it has to do with genre more than anything. It's gotta be hard to write a romantic, melodramatic period piece about young lovers on a doomed ship. It's not When Harry Met Sally, or Knocked Up. It's more along the lines of the paperback romance novels that girls love to read... not science fiction / fantasy fans like us.

And while TITANIC had it's share of some silly dialogue, so much of it is outstanding. One example would be the dinner scene with Jack in the borrowed tuxedo. He is a total misfit in that world, but everything he says is perfect. Not only does he manage to find a way to make their remarks look silly, he makes their preoccupation with money look ridiculous. It's some great writing. A lot of things are going on in that scene. Subtext comes out of dialogue. Good dialoge doesn't only mean quotable like "Then why don't you put her in charge!" : )