comment #1

caslab says ...

I don't know, I'm not feeling this one connect. James Cameron seems to be the only common link between this and Titanic.

comment #2

Alboone says ...

I don't know but I have this funny feeling that the 3D will be so overloaded as to be unbearable in letting the story naturally flow. What is the purpose of the 3D as far as story advancement goes or is it just a device to make something old new again?

Another reason why I'm a little worried on this one is that James Cameron's ego knows no bounds. We're talking about the same asshole who held a press conference claiming he's unearthed the "real" tomb of Jesus. An unchecked ego to me is a recipe for an unmitigated disaster. George Lucas being a prime example.

Who knows, I could be wrong. I know the potheads will be there opening weekend.

comment #3

erniesouchak says ...

Like all other "hot" movies, it will be hot for precisely one weekend.

comment #4

Howlingman says ...

The bigger concern lies in how long it's been since Cameron made a narrative feature, and the bar has been raised, significantly, when it comes to Sci-Fi/Fantasy. You may not love them, but in the years since Titanic we've seen The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Transformers, X-Men, another Star Wars trilogy ... the list goes on. And while these may not be "great" cinema, they upped the spectacle ante enough that Cameron's really going to have to show us stuff nobody's ever seen before.

comment #5

Josh Massey says ...

If anything, the "spectacle ante" has been lowered - because very little is actually impressive anymore. If Cameron pulls something, anything, out to actually make our jaws drop, it will be a miracle.

For my money, no FX shot in recent years has topped the T-Rex leaving the paddock in Jurassic Park. That was one of the only times CGI has ever actually AMAZED me.

comment #6

Ray says ...

@ Josh Massey - You're exactly right. In fact, MOST of the dinosaur scenes in PARK work better than almost all other CGI we've seen since, and it's because of one factor alone - STEVEN SPIELBERG. He builds each appearance of the dinosaurs dramatically, giving them a weight and presence that pixels alone cannot create.

You watch that movie and then watch something like the awful CGI in WOLVERINE (15 years later, mind you), and you're amazed.

comment #7

Rich S. says ...

It didn't say so in the article, but I think some industry insiders have at least seen snippets of the film. Wasn't Soderbergh raving about it about a month ago? So all of this preparation isn't coming about sight unseen.

I know Cameron has gone on record stating that the only way to save theatrical exhibition is by giving people an experience they can't have at home. While Cameron hasn't made a narrative film since Titanic, he's been extremely active with things like his underwater IMAX 3D ventures.

Avatar might very well suck as a movie. But I'm guessing at the very least, Cameron will give us something we've never seen before.

comment #8

kneelbeforezod says ...

I'd like to third the comments above... the t-rex still looks incredible. I think Avatar has the potential to be the next film to create that oh-my-god-I-can't-believe-what-I'm-seeing feeling.

And as for the guy above who said that the 3D will be so overloaded the story won't be able to flow... well, firstly I'm not sure exactly what he means, and secondly if there's one director who seems to grasp the potential for 3D to really open up a world, and involve the viewer and sweep them away, it's James Cameron. I don't think his plans for 3D involve things exploding and flying out of the screen!

comment #9

Rich S. says ...

I think one of the reasons the dinosaurs looked so realistic in Jurassic Park was, ironically, they weren't sure the CGI was going to work. So they hedged their bets by surrounding the CGI with lots of practical effects and model work. As a result, the CGI was more "grounded" in the real world.

One of my favorite effects in the movie is when the Brachiosaurus is munching the leaves on the top of the tree. You can tell they shook the branches with fishing line and then snapped it off when the dino lets go of the leaves. Very simple, but very effective.

Today, not only the dino but everything around it, the trees, the fence, the mud, etc. would be computer-generated. As a result, everything looks unreal.

comment #10

DavidF says ...

I hear what Josh is saying - and I agree a lot of the spectacle has gone out of it AND that the CGI in Jurassic Part still holds up.

I still think there have been some other amazing shots, the openings of Fellowship of the Ring and Revenge of the Sith coming to mind off hand. For everyone of those, however, there's a lot of crap overkill.

I just watched the making-of features on Benjamin Button and I still don't understand how they did that crazy shit.

I think this whole fully-animated, 3-D thing that Zemeckis and Cameron all over is awfully iffy but I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt until Avatar hits. Cameron may be an egotistical flake but he rarely misses and he's put a lot into this.

comment #11

Chase Kahn says ...

"I know Cameron has gone on record stating that the only way to save theatrical exhibition is by giving people an experience they can't have at home".

As long as the window between theatrical release and DVD/BD release is 4-5 months, it doesn't matter how close the experience is to your home theater.

comment #12

Breedlove says ...

I've been shaking my heads at the naysayers and doubters of this project for years now...I have total, 100% faith in Cameron. I think this puppy will blow everyone away and make about a billion dollars. There is a lot of negativity surrounding Cameron...am I the only one who thinks the guy is basically a god? Who cares about his personality or his ego? The guy is the Michael Jordan of action movies. He's operating on an entirely different level. I read the treatment for this a while back and trust me - you will be completely blown away. I think the 3 best directors on the planet earth are probably PTA, Mann, and Cameron. He's a genius. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this movie won Best Picture, although I doubt that will happen.

comment #13

Breedlove says ...

And man, did Harry Knowles HATE Terminator.

comment #14

crazynine says ...

Ditto the Jurassic Park love-- I had this exact same conversation with a friend not two weeks ago, heh.

In many ways, the limitations of then-state of the art CGI were similar to the limitations of "Bruce the Shark" in Jaws. Spielberg couldn't get that damn shark to work right, so he instead (wisely) chose to show a lot less of it.

Ditto Jurassic Park, which rationed out most of the CGI effects, made plenty use of excellent practical effects, and was as "sublte" as an on-the-nose summer blockbuster could be.

Alas, in that time, CGI has become so simple and (relatively) inexpensive that the only response from filmmakers is MORE MORE MORE. Thus, the spectacle is gone, because even the best CGI is still CGI.

For my money, the only thing CGI gets right is space sequences-- the stuff they did for Battlestar Galactica on a TV budget were more impressive than anything short of Michael Bay. But creature effects? *People* effects? They still can't get the physics right. A few frames at a time, but all it takes is one frame that's "off" to suck you out of the effect.

Anyway, less is more, unless you're going the completely stylized route (a.k.a. 300 or Sin City, where you have no expectation you're watching an approximation of reality).

But the bottom line? There was a not-insignificant portion of The Dark Knight's loving audience that loved the movie LARGELY because it eschewed cartoonish effects and stuck in the real world. There's a lot to like, even love, in that movie, but had it gone the CGI cartoon route ala Spiderman, it wouldn't be half the movie it was considered to be.

I hope Hollywood is paying attention to that kind of success.

That all said. . Dude. It's James Cameron. Even his *failures* are impressive-- and his successes are timeless classics.

Hope Avatar is the latter, but I'll accept the former, as long as he shows me something we've never seen before.

comment #15

Abbey Normal says ...

Really good point about how much better CGI is when it's supported by old-school effects like models, etc. None of us will ever forget that T-Rex scene, because the way it was "framed"--the rain, the models, the angles--gave the CGI depth and structure.

It's one of the reasons "Roger Rabbit" looked so good; they weren't sure they would be able to convincingly blend the animation with live action, so they framed the effects with props and sleight-of-hand timing tricks. These days, they'd just CGI everything around the animation and it wouldn't look half as good.

"Avatar" will be amazing like Sin City was amazing, and maybe even better than that. But it won't blow your hair back like Jurassic Park because it will be so divorced from reality. The T-Rex worked precisely because it was MARRIED to reality; Jeff Goldblum was running away from something that seemed to be physically present.

comment #16

I-Love-Film says ...

Jurassic Park had only 6.5 minutes of CGI in total. T2 had 3.5 minutes.

comment #17

Admiral82 says ...

I'll take Cameron any day. He's one of those crazy fanatical brilliant types.

comment #18

the sordid sentinel says ...

I am strangely conflicted about "Avatar". I'm completely sick of it already, yet I want to see it.

comment #19

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I'm excited for Avatar, but I do think they need to get the wider public interested too before they start predicting billion-dollar grosses. Nobody in the real world has a clue of what this is. And the Titanic connection isn't enough to ensure success. LOTR didn't help King Kong.

Jurassic Park is a cast-iron classic. Any Spielberg haters are fucking morons if they deny that his greatest hits are absolutely some of the best films ever made in their genre.

comment #20

Markj74 says ...

@Breedlove: Jim Cameron does indeed operate on a completely different level, especially from the level of the other blockbuster directors we have inflicted on us at the moment.

My prediction? Avatar will be the biggest movie in years.

comment #21

Joe M. says ...

Is Shyamalen's movie still called "Avatar", too? You'd think he'd have blinked by now and changed his title to something else. Eventually, some studio- his or Cameron's- is going to force him to change it, so he might as well do it himself first.

comment #22

Rich S. says ...

Also, wasn't Cameron on record as saying that Avatar would play ONLY in IMAX 3D? I doubt that's still the case, but if so, it might need the 3 month engagement to make its money.

comment #23

theultimatebiu says ...

If Avatar is half as good as those who have seen it are saying than we could be in for a very special movie experience.

comment #24

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Joe: They dropped the "Avatar" bit from Shyamalan's film so it's now just called "The Last Airbender," which sounds like a fart.

comment #25

kneelbeforezod says ...

Sin City?! Oh God, Avatar is going to blow people away far more than that I think. I have this idea in my head that the film will really make you feel like you're traveling to another planet, that we will be on some sort of craft or dropship or something as it goes through the atmosphere and enters a photorealistic new world, utilising the full IMAX screen and 3D.

I don't know if I've read about this or if I'm making it up but.. that's what I'm hoping for.

comment #26

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

I think it's safe to expect that in terms of awe and wonder and visual spectacle, James Cameron has his sights set at least a thousand miles above Sin City (no disrespect intended to that film).

comment #27

DeeZee says ...

Breed: It might end up being good, but there's no way it's making $1 billion. It's got no stars, and a campaign pandering to tech-heads, rather than regular audiences. It's going to be Cameron's Tron. As for Knuckles, I'm guessing he only hated T4, because they didn't give him a private seat.

crazynine: Dark Angel's impressive?

Bosh: I'd like JP more, if it explored the sci-fi aspect of the ideas in the book, but it ends up being a dumb monster movie. A dumb monster movie with flashy FX, but that's it.

Anyway, why do the people who are hyping Avatar sound like the PR folks who hyped that electronic scooter a while back?

comment #28

Todd says ...

I don't get the negativity being written here about James Cameron's Avatar. James Cameron has been working on this for years.
Going to see this movie in 3D IMAX will be like going to the amusement park on a special ride that will not only thrill you with
spectacular effects never before seen at the movies but offer a good SciFi story.
I have a few thousand dollars invested in IMAX. I purchased it when it dropped to the $2.50.
I would hope the executives at IMAX realize that this will definitely be a repeater for many seeking more than just a 2D movie
experience.
I guess some of the film snobs that visit Jeff's website just don't get it, but that's OK :).

comment #29

Todd says ...

DeeZee You're right I never heard of Sigourney Weaver I think she made a few Bomb movies that never made any money. Like those Alien movies everyone knows they sucked and I'm sure no one even heard of them.

comment #30

DeeZee says ...

Todd: Weaver's only had two successful Alien movies, and is otherwise not a box office draw. Even if she still had some recognition with today's audiences, though, she's still not popular enough to justify seeing Avatar.

comment #31

Breedlove says ...

Could not disagree more with whoever compared AVATAR to SIN CITY. AVATAR isn't going to be some super-stylized movie like 300 or SPEED RACER or something. It is going to be totally realistic. That's the point. What makes you think it will be "divorced from reality?" Did you have trouble buying into T2 or ALIENS?

All of you guys who are focused on the marketing, it doesn't have any stars, Cameron's been gone to long, blah blah blah...don't forget, sometimes it can actually be about The Movie. None of that stuff matters if Cameron delivers some mind-blowing event movie that is unlike anything we've ever seen, and it becomes a cultural touchstone that everyone has to go see. The 3D IMAX thing is risky, but it could pay off huge, because people HAVE to see it in a theater. Also, I just realized, IMAX tickets cost a lot more - $18.50 here in NYC. That alone will shoot the b.o. up a bunch, no?

comment #32

Howlingman says ...

I certainly agree with you, Breedlove in that it's ultimately about The Movie -- and if anyone can make us drop jaws it's Cameron. But as one who looked forward to and was sorely disappointed in the Prequel Trilogy, Indy 4, Matrix 2 & 3, I'm hesitant to gush in advance of this one. Cameron has never disappointed me - the money's on the screen - and I look forward to him proving all us naysayers wrong. But he's not infalliable.

comment #33

JChasse says ...

Sigourney Weaver has almost as many Academy Award nominations as you have names that you've posted under. And I seem to recall her in these two movies about something strange happening in a neighborhood and you're supposed to call somebody. Made some money, if I remember correctly.

comment #34

DeeZee says ...

JC: We've been over this already. Being nominated for an Academy Award is not always the same as being popular. And Ghostbusters made money because of the Murray/Akroyd factor and the FX, plain and simple.

comment #35

JChasse says ...

How do you explain that many of the people you like get nominated for awards? How do you explain how many of the people you like are found enderaing by the public? How do you explain how many of the people you don't like are given the money to carry out their vision, repulsive as you might find that vision to be? How do you explain how many of the people you don't like find work? Is everyone stupid but you?

comment #36

JChasse says ...

Look at how I let you get to me... I meant "don't like" in the first two questions, and I misspelled a word, which automatically destroys whatever argument anyone makes on the internet. Bad Jchasse, BAD!

comment #37

Ghost072 says ...

The idea that there isn't enough hype on Avatar is hilarious. The hype machine for this thing will be huge once it starts rolling, but Cameron hasn't even released any stills yet. I anticipate the hype machine will follow the Star Trek model, which was very effective, with the monochrome one sheets highlighting each character and the super short teaser being all we got until the awesome trailer released just before the movie. In other words, sparse, but iconic, not huge waves of noise.

Cameron is a blowhard and a megalomaniac, but he is also a visionary who knows how to ride the bleeding edge of technology to make entertaining movies. I anticipate Avatar will be a movie lots of people will see twice in the theater, which will mean big box office receipts.

comment #38

DeeZee says ...

JC: I'd imagine the success of those individuals either comes from pandering to the lowest common denominator or from being able to bullshit greedy people into betting on them. 0r, they don't have to actually try, because they fit a particular image shoved down our throats of what is considered "attractive". In Jimmy's case, it was ripping off Harlan Ellison.

Ghost: Of course, the irony of your comment on Star Trek is that they were already hyping the sucker last year. Meanwhile, Cameron keeps re-shooting and hiding Avatar, and only allowing industry observers to comment on it.

comment #39

JChasse says ...

They were "hyping the sucker" last year because the sucker was scheduled to come out last year. In fact, it was going to be their big holiday release, and it's customary to show trailers for that early on in the year. They'll never come out with a truthful answer, but I woder if the powers that be at Paramount knew that "Harry Potter" wouldn't be coming out for Thanksgiving after all, they would have done what they could to get "Star Trek" out for Xmas.

comment #40

Ghost072 says ...

"They were "hyping the sucker" last year because the sucker was scheduled to come out last year."

Bingo.

"In Jimmy's case, it was ripping off Harlan Ellison."

The Terminator is obviously fairly close in basic concept to Ellison's "Soldier" Outer Limits episode, but a lot of things are fairly close to a lot of things, especially in science fiction. Also, Cameron's take was focused on the machines versus man angle - which may be the most compelling plot point - and which Ellison never touched on in Soldier. The comparisons to "Demon with a Glass Hand" are thin in my book. So, the protagonist turns out to be a robot. Does that mean Blade Runner (and Philip K. Dick) ripped off Ellison, too?

None of this addresses the real point though; Cameron took elements from previous works and made a unique vision that worked very well and, subsequently, inspired other works. That's the way creative things work, especially story telling. There really are no original ideas left, IMO.

comment #41

air nike shoes says ...

they don't have to actually try, because they fit a particular image shoved down our throats of what is considered "attractive". In Jimmy's case, it was ripping off Harlan Ellison.

comment #42

cheapetiffany says ...

I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers. And I hope that such prayers will also be the first of many. If you have not chosen me by secret ballot, neither have I gained office by any secret promises. I have not campaigned either for the Presidency or the Vice Presidency. I have not subscribed to any partisan platform. I am indebted to no man, and only to one woman -- my dear wife -- as I begin this very difficult job.cheap tiffany co jewelry