Upcoming
Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
Monkeys and Football
Dana Goodyear's profile of Avatar director-writer James Cameron, titled "Man of Extremes," in the current New Yorker is smoothly, beautifully written -- a pure-pleasure, warm-butter read. Cameron "is six feet two and fair, with paper-white hair and turbid blue-green eyes," she begins. "He is a screamer -- righteous, withering, aggrieved.
"'Do you want Paul Verhoeven to finish this motherfucker? he shouted, an inch from Arnold Schwarzenegger's face, after the actor went AWOL from the set of True Lies, a James Bond spoof that Cameron was shooting in Washington, D.C. (Schwarzenegger had been giving the other actors a tour of the Capitol.)
"Cameron has mastered every job on set, and has even been known to grab a brush out of a makeup artist's hand. 'I always do makeup touch-ups myself, especially for blood, wounds, and dirt,' he says. 'It saves so much time." His evaluations of others' abilities are colorful riddles. 'Hiring you is like firing two good men,' he says, or 'Watching him light is like watching two monkeys fuck a football.' A small, loyal band of cast and crew works with him repeatedly; they call the dark side of his personality Mij -- Jim backward.
"The pressures on Cameron are extreme, never mind that he has brought them on himself. His movies are among the most expensive ever made. Terminator 2 was the first film to cost a hundred million dollars, Titanic the first to exceed two hundred million. But victory is sweeter after a close brush with defeat. Terminator 2 earned five hundred and nineteen million around the world, and Titanic which came out in 1997, still holds the record for global box-office: $1.8 billion.
"Cameron is fifty-five. It has been twelve years since he has made a feature film; Avatar, his new movie, comes out on December 18th and will have cost more than two hundred and thirty million dollars by the time it's done. He started working on it full time four years ago, from a script he wrote in 1994.
"AvatarThe Abyss and the liquid-silver man of Terminator 2 helped to inspire the digital revolution that has transformed moviemaking in the past two decades.
"The digital elements of Avatar, he claims, are so believable that, even when they exist alongside human actors, the audience will lose track of what is real and what is not. 'This film integrates my life's achievements,' he told me. 'It's the most complicated stuff anyone's ever done.' Another time, he said, 'If you set your goals ridiculously high and it's a failure, you will fail above everyone else's success.'"
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 20, 2009 at 5:54 AM
comment #1
Colin
says ...
I certainly give him props for the speciial effects he has created, but no will forget that the blue cat person next to Stephen Lang isn't real.
Hope it does well.
Posted by Colin
at October 20, 2009 12:10 PM
comment #2
drbob
says ...
"If you set your goals ridiculously high and it's a failure, you will fail above everyone else's success."
This statement looks good on paper, but it is almost certainly false - the bigger they are, the harder they fall is more like it.
"The digital elements of Avatar, he claims, are so believable that, even when they exist alongside human actors, the audience will lose track of what is real and what is not."
The trailer looks like animation pure and simple. He may have spent a billion dollars, but he has not achieved photo-realistic yet. And, given the parameters of the uncanny valley, it's probably better if he didn't try.
Posted by drbob
at October 20, 2009 12:11 PM
comment #3
DeafBrownTrashPunk
says ...
I will always give him credit for creating strong, independent female leading roles, unlike many other certain big name filmmakers.
but yikes... i still can't shake off the awful Nightcrawler trailer video for AVATAR.
Posted by DeafBrownTrashPunk
at October 20, 2009 12:14 PM
comment #4
Ryansi51
says ...
i thought Nightcrawlers was the game Charlie and Frank play on ITS ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA
Posted by Ryansi51
at October 20, 2009 12:31 PM
comment #5
Eloi Manning
says ...
I think they're hoping that if they repeat the mantra about photorealism enough, people will suddenly start to believe it. They've certainly fooled themselves, if nobody else.
Still no buzz in the real world about this film. They need to ramp up the ad campaign.
Posted by Eloi Manning
at October 20, 2009 12:48 PM
comment #6
G.N.A.
says ...
I'm the one person in the world who hasn't seen TITANIC. Three hour love story with awful dialogue? No thanks. TRUE LIES is one I can watch over and over. Though I usually fast forward the Jamie Lee Curtis/Bill Paxton stuff.
Posted by G.N.A.
at October 20, 2009 1:03 PM
comment #7
Jack South P.I.
says ...
Money Quote:
Cameron to any suit that gets in his way:
"Tell your friend he's getting fucked in the ass, and if he would stop squirming it wouldn't hurt so much."
Eustace Tilley must be blushing!
Posted by Jack South P.I.
at October 20, 2009 1:15 PM
comment #8
dinovelvet
says ...
The Bill Paxton stuff IS True Lies. I'd rather fast forward the Tom Arnold scenes.
Posted by dinovelvet
at October 20, 2009 1:28 PM
comment #9
great scott
says ...
"The Bill Paxton stuff IS True Lies."
Surely you jest. How long was he in it, ten minutes?
From the sound of it, I'd rather have Tony Soprano mad at me than Cameron.
Posted by great scott
at October 20, 2009 1:40 PM
comment #10
Flash Gordon
says ...
James Cameron discovered Jessica Alba AND Eliza Dushku.
Lifetime pass.
Posted by Flash Gordon
at October 20, 2009 2:09 PM
comment #11
Eloi Manning
says ...
"James Cameron discovered Jessica Alba AND Eliza Dushku.
Lifetime pass."
There were lots of great-looking women in Transformers 2. Does Michael Bay get a lifetime pass?
Posted by Eloi Manning
at October 20, 2009 2:16 PM
comment #12
Flash Gordon
says ...
Since Bay didn't "discover" Megan Fox, the answer is no.
Posted by Flash Gordon
at October 20, 2009 2:22 PM
comment #13
Blepyrus
says ...
Great article. He may be not the nicest guy around but gets things done and awesome movies are the result.
Posted by Blepyrus
at October 20, 2009 2:27 PM
comment #14
great scott
says ...
Uh, Flash, Fox made her film debut in Bad Boys II. So yeah, he kinda did.
Posted by great scott
at October 20, 2009 2:43 PM
comment #15
Flash Gordon
says ...
Okay, fine. Michael Bay, lifetime pass, whatever.
Posted by Flash Gordon
at October 20, 2009 3:00 PM
comment #16
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
"The Bill Paxton stuff IS True Lies."
Nice to see Paxton's agent posting here on HE...
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at October 20, 2009 3:08 PM
comment #17
markj
says ...
James Cameron directed The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss and Terminator 2.
Lifetime pass.
Posted by markj
at October 20, 2009 3:11 PM
comment #18
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
Megan Fox was in BB2 for about 3 seconds. And with the psychotic way Bay films are edited, that probably translates into about 1.5 seconds of actual screentime.
And also, who cares.
What's the opposite of a lifetime pass?
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at October 20, 2009 3:13 PM
comment #19
BurmaShave
says ...
I'm glad it will post in italics when I affirm that Bill Paxton is great in TRUE LIES.
Posted by BurmaShave
at October 20, 2009 4:28 PM
comment #20
DeeZee
says ...
Terminator 2 was the sequel to an already popular movie, though. So, at the very worst, it was going to break even. Titanic was the real risk, but it was a damn good thing that Leo took off with teen girls after Romeo + Juliet. I don't think an expensive movie trying to cash in on FX and a guy who was last remembered for dumping Alba on the general public is a good idea, though.
Anyway, DH confirmed the new trailer for Avatar this weekend.
Eloi: "I think they're hoping that if they repeat the mantra about photorealism enough, people will suddenly start to believe it. They've certainly fooled themselves, if nobody else. "
They've also fooled themselves about BD and 3-D, it seems.
G.N.A.: It's alright if you missed it. You'd already know the ending, even if you've avoided internet spoilers all this time, so...
dino: Oh, gawd, yes. Arnold was the Jar Jar of that flick.
Flash: I doubt being associated with an actress who can't even hold a low-concept show like Dollhouse together is a plus. And Alba's such an awful actress, that even the guys who probably bought her Maxim spreads won't pay for her movies, unless she's not the star of 'em.
Posted by DeeZee
at October 20, 2009 5:02 PM
comment #21
ZayTonday
says ...
These italics are making MY EYES EXPLODE
Posted by ZayTonday
at October 20, 2009 5:46 PM
comment #22
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
If D.Z.'s posts were ever meant to be read (which is arguable), they were meant to be read in italics.
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at October 20, 2009 6:08 PM
comment #23
televisiontears
says ...
Sorry for adding nothing to the conversation, but I always wondered what would happen when you use the italics tag when the whole page is italics like this.
Posted by televisiontears
at October 20, 2009 6:08 PM
comment #24
televisiontears
says ...
...and nothing.
Posted by televisiontears
at October 20, 2009 6:09 PM
comment #25
DeeZee
says ...
Anyway, it looks like Wild Things could be a one-weekend wonder. http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-wild-things-bad-for-kids.html
Posted by DeeZee
at October 20, 2009 6:10 PM
comment #26
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
Anyway, any DeeZee post that starts off with "anyway" is going to be even more ludicrously off-topic than usual -- no easy feat.
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at October 20, 2009 6:40 PM
comment #27
Gordon27
says ...
Yes, the "anyway" signifies that it will be even more tangential to both the conversation and reality than usual.
Posted by Gordon27
at October 20, 2009 6:50 PM
comment #28
Gogocrank
says ...
Entertaining article, but "Avatar" Red Flag #58 is that the piece reveals absolutely nothing more about the movie than what any of us plebes knew months ago. Which means the writer hadn't seen much more of it than the "Avatar" day dorks, which also explains why the article focuses so much on the process rather than the still mysterious results, which in turn implies it's likely still a down to the wire work in progress. I'm nonetheless really shocked the buzz-generator is not in higher gear yet, since the dissipating but still lingering "District 9" buzz is still louder than the "Avatar" buzz.
Posted by Gogocrank
at October 20, 2009 7:03 PM
comment #29
Rothchild
says ...
I'm a little scared knowing DeeZee lives in Los Angeles. He should have to go door to door like Jesus and let people know he lives in their neighborhood.
Posted by Rothchild
at October 20, 2009 7:19 PM
comment #30
Rothchild
says ...
This is a test.
Posted by Rothchild
at October 20, 2009 7:20 PM
comment #31
Cde.
says ...
Avatar cost way more than $230 million, which is just a number that Fox released to stop people asking. Rupert Murdoch was defending the 'high cost' of the film at the News Corp annual meeting last week, and of late when producer Jon Landau has been questioned about the budget he's replied either "no comment" or "yes".
Posted by Cde.
at October 20, 2009 8:15 PM
comment #32
BurmaShave
says ...
Also, a point of order. Jessica Alba was discovered for NEVER BEEN KISSED. So Raja Gosnell, lifetime pass.
Posted by BurmaShave
at October 20, 2009 8:54 PM
comment #33
LYT
says ...
I thought Jessica Alba was discovered in the FLIPPER movie with Paul Hogan?
Posted by LYT
at October 20, 2009 9:49 PM
comment #34
markj
says ...
@CitizenKanedforChewingGum: "What's the opposite of a lifetime pass?"
The careers of Michael Bay, JJ Abrams, Stephen Sommers and McG.
Posted by markj
at October 21, 2009 12:38 AM
comment #35
Uncle Milty
says ...
"@CitizenKanedforChewingGum: "What's the opposite of a lifetime pass?"
The careers of Michael Bay, JJ Abrams, Stephen Sommers and McG."
Jesus Christ. One of these things is not like the others.
Posted by Uncle Milty
at October 21, 2009 12:56 AM
comment #36
LexG
says ...
ALBA POWER.
ENOUGH.
Posted by LexG
at October 21, 2009 12:56 AM
comment #37
DeeZee
says ...
Burma: No one watched Never Been Kissed, because Alba didn't take off her clothes in that one, so I disagree.
LYT: No, she was "discovered" in Idle Hands. But she made her "debut" on Emo Angel, er Dark Angel.
Cde: Sort of like how DB: E was really $150 million, but they tried to pretend it was $40 million? ^_- No wonder Murdoch wants to charge for his online news, since he has to save his next quarter from pushing the company in the red. As for Avatar, I could swear reading the figure was as high as $270 million a while back. Those free sample screenings have got to add to the cost, too...I'm still not sure how you can defend it, either, when there are no fucking stars, and it's going up against a Disney film and a Peter Jackson film during the holiday season.
Anyway, New Moon director interview.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/interviews_profiles/e3i52b98321113d441aedb8de94312e6bb4
The Ridley tries Gucci with Jolie.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010190.html?categoryId=13&cs=1
Will the Miss Saigon movie have an Asian character played by an Asian person this time?
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010180.html?categoryId=13&cs=1
sin nombre guy tackles Jane Eyre.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010174.html?categoryId=3768&cs=1
And speaking of Alba, Idle Hands is on Crackle.
Posted by DeeZee
at October 21, 2009 1:09 AM
comment #38
Cde.
says ...
Dragonball Evolution can't have cost $150 million. No way...that can't be true.
Posted by Cde.
at October 21, 2009 1:28 AM
comment #39
BurmaShave
says ...
I hate myself so much, but NEVER BEEN KISSED made about 55 million on a 25 million budget. And it was Drew Barrymore vehicle, and I was obviously making a joke. D, you ruin everything.
Posted by BurmaShave
at October 21, 2009 1:52 AM
comment #40
DeeZee
says ...
Cde: Couldn't believe it, either, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvYk7NG1u88 @ 2:28...He claims to be a studio insider.
Burma: A $25 million budget with $10-$15 million in P+A ain't so great, especially considering Ever After did a helluva lot better a year earlier. Though the WW total's pretty good, so I'm guessing it was more of a sleeper hit.
Anyway, Craven's next gig. http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/15454/craven-s-next-gets-some-soul-
Oh, and this should perk Jeff up.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1913069
Posted by DeeZee
at October 21, 2009 2:26 AM
comment #41
markj
says ...
@ Uncle Milty: My point being Cameron earns a lifetime pass for making great movies. Whereas the other filmmakers, erm, won't.
Posted by markj
at October 21, 2009 2:56 AM
comment #42
Rich S.
says ...
I hate to say it, but at this point, I'm looking forward more to A Christmas Carol, Carrey mugging and all, than Avatar.
Posted by Rich S.
at October 21, 2009 4:26 AM
comment #43
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
"As for Avatar, I could swear reading the figure was as high as $270 million a while back. Those free sample screenings have got to add to the cost, too...I'm still not sure how you can defend it, either, when there are no fucking stars, and it's going up against a Disney film and a Peter Jackson film during the holiday season."
Defend it??? Nobody's even seen it yet, so I may very well ask you the opposite question (how can you already attack it?). Also, who cares what the movie's budget is if the film is enjoyable? What are you, the studio accountant? That's not to even mention the fact that he's damn-well earned that kinda budget after the big boat movie is the HIGHEST-GROSSING FILM OF ALL TIME (not including inflation, one of your favorite pet responses). That Avatar is even in the same financial ballpark 12 years later actually shows a decent amount of thrift on his part, given inflation (your favorite word!).
"Cde: Couldn't believe it, either, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvYk7NG1u88 @ 2:28...He claims to be a studio insider. "
That's your proof?? Some random dude on youtube claims to be a "studio insider," and all the sudden you're willing to buy the reported budget was lowballed by $100 million? Now I'm starting to understand why you take those silly, anti-QT propaganda Mike White "videos" so seriously.
"Burma: A $25 million budget with $10-$15 million in P+A ain't so great, especially considering Ever After did a helluva lot better a year earlier. Though the WW total's pretty good, so I'm guessing it was more of a sleeper hit."
I like how you pretend to disagree with (or "correct") someone, only to come to pretty much the exact same conclusion at the end of your retort.
You DO ruin everything, dude.
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at October 21, 2009 6:52 AM
comment #44
great scott
says ...
"I'd rather fast forward the Tom Arnold scenes."
Nice to see Roseanne Barr posting here on HE. . .
Posted by great scott
at October 21, 2009 8:26 AM
comment #45
great scott
says ...
Anyway . . .
Posted by great scott
at October 21, 2009 8:27 AM
comment #46
Uncle Milty
says ...
Yeah, I got that markj.
JJ doesn't deserve the same treatment as the others listed.
Posted by Uncle Milty
at October 21, 2009 10:11 AM
comment #47
chad_pole
says ...
Since when did Bay discover Megan Fox? She was in a TV series called "Ocean Ave." in 2002 and did voice work before that.
She's a terrible actor anyway, not much of a discovery.
Posted by chad_pole
at October 21, 2009 10:48 AM
comment #48
Renfield
says ...
Rich S,,
If you like racial stereotypes-- Carey looks like he was made-up like cartoons of Jews from WW2 and has an odd, almost Indian, old man accent-- then A Christmas Carol is for you!
You can count on some mild controversy when that one comes out.
Posted by Renfield
at October 21, 2009 10:52 AM
comment #49
Colin
says ...
Assuming the character is based on Jewish people because of his looks says more about you than Christmas Carol.
Posted by Colin
at October 21, 2009 11:09 AM
comment #50
Flash Gordon
says ...
I'd like to discover Megan Fox naked on my couch when I get home.
BADA-BING!
Posted by Flash Gordon
at October 21, 2009 12:50 PM
comment #51
Renfield
says ...
Colin,
Shut up.
Posted by Renfield
at October 21, 2009 2:35 PM
comment #52
DeeZee
says ...
Kane: By defend it, I was referring to Cde's comment about how Murdoch defended the budget. But since you brought it up...
"Nobody's even seen it yet, so I may very well ask you the opposite question (how can you already attack it?)."
Cus I hated Titanic and Dark Angel? And cus Avatar looks like an unnecessary remake of Fantastic Planet?
"Also, who cares what the movie's budget is if the film is enjoyable? What are you, the studio accountant?"
Enjoyable to whom? And frankly, no exec in Hollywood pays out that kind of money expecting a movie to be good. The last time someone at New Line did that with LOTR, Time Warner decided to absorb the company as payback for fucking up Superman Returns and Poseidon.
"That's not to even mention the fact that he's damn-well earned that kinda budget after the big boat movie is the HIGHEST-GROSSING FILM OF ALL TIME (not including inflation, one of your favorite pet responses). "
That was 12 years ago, and dumb fucking luck.
And as far as I'm concerned, he's earned it when he can sell movies on his name, and not on who's in them. Last time I checked, the Abyss was a bomb, too...[IMDB has its budget at $70 million, probably more insane by the standards of 20 years ago than Titanic's budget at 12 years ago.]
"That Avatar is even in the same financial ballpark 12 years later actually shows a decent amount of thrift on his part, given inflation (your favorite word!)."
If Avatar were based on a recognizable franchise, maybe. But then if HALO could be shot on half that budget, then Avatar's probably over-priced, given today's technology versus 12 years ago.
"Some random dude on youtube claims to be a "studio insider," and all the sudden you're willing to buy the reported budget was lowballed by $100 million?"
He sounds more legit than the actors who shilled for the movie...
Renfield: While it's true Dickens and Walt hated Jews, I'm assuming that the adaptation is just meant to be cartoonish in general.
Posted by DeeZee
at October 21, 2009 3:13 PM
comment #53
Gordon27
says ...
"And as far as I'm concerned, he's earned it when he can sell movies on his name, and not on who's in them."
DZ, that's the stupidest thing you've ever said. There is not a single director in Hollywood who can sell movies purely on his own name.
"The last time someone at New Line did that with LOTR, Time Warner decided to absorb the company as payback for fucking up Superman Returns and Poseidon. "
This one might actually be stupider, but I can't understand a word of it.
"But then if HALO could be shot on half that budget, then Avatar's probably over-priced, given today's technology versus 12 years ago."
So, since today's technology is significantly more expesnive -- not to mention that the money went to developing entirely new technologies -- and since Halo fell apart because it couldn't get the budget it really required to do it right, you're saying that it isn't over-priced? I agree.
"While it's true Dickens and Walt hated Jews"
Charles Dickens did not hate Jews. That is so far from the truth that it makes me question everything you've ever said. Oh, wait, everything you've ever said is stupid; that's one of the less stupid things you said (and may even have some truth with regard to Disney). So, okay, nevermind.
Posted by Gordon27
at October 21, 2009 7:01 PM
comment #54
Rothchild
says ...
Man, I don't know how DeeZee manages to top himself every time but this is genius:
"And cus Avatar looks like an unnecessary remake of Fantastic Planet?"
WTF? He believes everything is a ripoff of something he hasn't even seen and he'll also believe anyone on YouTube that validates is insanity. Fox would never spend that amount of money on a Wolverine movie let alone Dragonball. Everything about you is stupid.
Posted by Rothchild
at October 21, 2009 7:50 PM
comment #55
Rothchild
says ...
How crazy do you have to be to find something like that youtube video? DeeZee knows more about the things he hates than the fans of the films and properties do. It's psycho.
Posted by Rothchild
at October 21, 2009 7:55 PM
comment #56
Gordon27
says ...
"How crazy do you have to be to find something like that youtube video?"
The trick is to go looking for things that confirm what you already believe. For instance, DZ hates all movies (yeah, yeah, Deez, except 'Ghost World'), so he looks for reasons to validate the hate. It doesn't matter where the reason comes from or how crazy/stupid the person seems, because DZ will automatically believe it makes sense because he already agrees with it.
It's a textbook confirmation bias, but ramped up to a million.
Posted by Gordon27
at October 21, 2009 8:22 PM
comment #57
Renfield
says ...
How friggin' fantastic would it be if DeeZee was actually Terry Zwigoff.
That would explain why Wells has let this guy continue to post his off-topic, moronic showboating for so long.
Posted by Renfield
at October 21, 2009 8:42 PM
comment #58
Gordon27
says ...
I would believe he was Zwigoff engaging in a pitch perfect mockery of Internet idiots if he didn't spend so much time posting long posts of links. Sadly, I have no trouble believing that Zwigoff has nothing better to do with his time; it feels like Hollywood has completely given up on him.
Posted by Gordon27
at October 21, 2009 8:45 PM
comment #59
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
"How friggin' fantastic would it be if DeeZee was actually Terry Zwigoff."
Somehow I could really picture his words coming from Robert Crumb...
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at October 21, 2009 8:45 PM
comment #60
DeeZee
says ...
Gordon: "There is not a single director in Hollywood who can sell movies purely on his own name."
Um, Spielberg, Sommers, and Snyder come to mind so far.
"This one might actually be stupider, but I can't understand a word of it."
Basically, I'm insinuating that Time Warner took over New Line, because the suits think don't like the company being able to control costs better than WB. And merging New Line into one entity can at least shift some of the blame from the suits who greenlit Superman Returns to the directors.
"So, since today's technology is significantly more expesnive -- not to mention that the money went to developing entirely new technologies -- and since Halo fell apart because it couldn't get the budget it really required to do it right, you're saying that it isn't over-priced? I agree."
Actually, my argument is that the technology to shoot a movie like Titanic is cheaper now than it was today. And thus Cameron's gone over-budget. Therefore, I'm baffled why FOX wanted to avoid investing half of that money on HALO, which at least was a name brand.
"Charles Dickens did not hate Jews. That is so far from the truth that it makes me question everything you've ever said. "
Even though Dickens keeps referring to Fagin as "the Jew", and argued that it was normal for them to be depicted as criminals, since that's what a majority of them were in real life, he's not anti-Semitic. Um, sure... What's next? Limbaugh doesn't hate black people?
Roth: "Fox would never spend that amount of money on a Wolverine movie let alone Dragonball."
Actually, they did spend that much dough on Wolvie.
As for the Zwigoff thing, I ain't him, but Crumb was one of the few flicks I could stand from the 90s. And he's still got a better record with movies than Kelly right now. On a related note, the real Crumb's gonna be @ UCLA next week.
Posted by DeeZee
at October 21, 2009 10:07 PM
comment #61
DeeZee
says ...
*Cheaper now than it was 12 years ago.*
Posted by DeeZee
at October 21, 2009 10:08 PM
comment #62
Gordon27
says ...
"Um, Spielberg, Sommers, and Snyder come to mind so far."
Is that the Spielberg whose movies gross under $50 million when they don't have an actual star draw ('Munich', 'Amistad', 'Always', 'Empire of the Sun', '1941')?
Your examples of Stephen Sommers and Zack Snyder as names that are bigger box-office draws than Cameron are just patently absurd. You spend too much time on-line if you think that most people who bought a ticket to 'G.I. Joe' are aware that Stephen Sommers wasn't the host of 'Family Double Dare'.
"Actually, my argument is that the technology to shoot a movie like Titanic is cheaper now than it was today. And thus Cameron's gone over-budget."
?!
Yes, the technology from 12 years ago, now that it's almost entirely outdated, is cheaper. I'm curious how this one true statement could lead to the next sentence, though; you either think that 'Titanic' went over budget because the technology is cheap now, or that 'Avatar' is using the same technology that 'Titanic' used. Either one of which is...
Well, I'm certainly blanking on how to respond to them.
"and argued that it was normal for them to be depicted as criminals, since that's what a majority of them were in real life"
You know, I didn't realize we were allowed to bring made up quotes into this. And here I was planning to bring up a genuine fact, that Dickens was unhappy that some people thought Fagin was anti-semitic when it was published in serial format, and thus re-wrote portions of it based on the early criticism. I didn't realize we could make quotes up. I happen to have just gotten off the telephone with Charles Dickens, and he told me to tell you that his views on Jews were basically in line with any other reasonable person of his time -- there are good Jews and bad Jews, and to point out that merely saying "the Jew" was not considered derogatory in 19th century England (it's not necessarily derogatory now).
The hilarious thing is contrasting this conversation, where one single character in one book makes Charles Dickens anti-semitic, with your previous defense that Mel Gibson is not anti-semitic, despite the evidence of his own words *and* every single Jewish character in 'The Passion of the Christ'. Seriously, how do you remember to breathe?
Posted by Gordon27
at October 21, 2009 10:21 PM
comment #63
Renfield
says ...
Gordon: "There is not a single director in Hollywood who can sell movies purely on his own name." Um, Spielberg, Sommers, and Snyder come to mind so far.
"Is that the Spielberg whose movies gross under $50 million when they don't have an actual star draw ('Munich', 'Amistad', 'Always', 'Empire of the Sun', '1941')?"
Neither of you can be serious here...
Please say that you're not. Help me believe.
Posted by Renfield
at October 22, 2009 1:55 AM
comment #64
markj
says ...
Uncle Milty: Yes, he does. Mission Impossible 3 and Star Trek were terrible movies.
Posted by markj
at October 22, 2009 4:34 AM
comment #65
markj
says ...
DeeZee: What are you talking about? Sommers and Snyder cannot sell movies based on their names. Most people don't even know who they are!
Anyway, all this will be moot when Avatar becomes a massive hit in a few weeks time. When G.I. Joe can make $150 mil domestic can you imagine how much Cameron is gonna rake in? Kids/teenagers are going to love Avatar.
Posted by markj
at October 22, 2009 4:37 AM
comment #66
Gordon27
says ...
"Please say that you're not. Help me believe."
Ren - the truth is that Spielberg is the only director in Hollywood who can lay any sort of claim on being a draw at the box office based on name alone. But even Spielberg does significantly less business when not dealing with stars (which was DZ's stipulation). I was merely making fun of his style of argument, cherry-picking things to counter what somebody says.
My simple point is, if you're going to argue that James Cameron movies only make money because of their stars, unlike Spielberg who is a box office draw on his own, and then point to 'The Abyss' as an example of a movie where he didn't have a star, I'm going to point out that Spielberg movies without stars have consistently grossed lower than 'The Abyss'.
Posted by Gordon27
at October 22, 2009 6:27 AM
comment #67
DeeZee
says ...
Gordon: "Is that the Spielberg whose movies gross under $50 million when they don't have an actual star draw ('Munich', 'Amistad', 'Always', 'Empire of the Sun', '1941')?"
Did E.T., Jaws, and Schindler's List have stars?
"Your examples of Stephen Sommers and Zack Snyder as names that are bigger box-office draws than Cameron are just patently absurd."
When Pirahnna 2 can make as much money as Dawn of the Dead, then we'll talk.
"Yes, the technology from 12 years ago, now that it's almost entirely outdated, is cheaper."
I'm saying the technology for a Titanic made today would be cheaper than the technology he used back then.
"you either think that 'Titanic' went over budget because the technology is cheap now, or that 'Avatar' is using the same technology that 'Titanic' used. Either one of which is...
No, I think that Titanic was over-budget, because the technology was more expensive then, and Avatar is way over-budget, because it doesn't even have any fucking stars to justify its cost, given the current type of technology available, compared to 12 years ago. There's no reason Avatar should cost more than Watchmen.
"You know, I didn't realize we were allowed to bring made up quotes into this."
Made-up quotes, huh? "Dickens claimed that he had made Fagin Jewish because "it unfortunately was true, of the time to which the story refers, that that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagin#Antisemitism
"that Dickens was unhappy that some people thought Fagin was anti-semitic when it was published in serial format, and thus re-wrote portions of it based on the early criticism."
More like he was pressured to do so by an acquaintance. [Same link.]
"I happen to have just gotten off the telephone with Charles Dickens, and he told me to tell you that his views on Jews were basically in line with any other reasonable person of his time -- "
You mean the kind of reasoning which led to Jews being sent to ghettos?
"there are good Jews and bad Jews, and to point out that merely saying "the Jew" was not considered derogatory in 19th century England (it's not necessarily derogatory now)."
Shylock, White Man's Burden and Sambo weren't considered derogatory, either. Times change.
"with your previous defense that Mel Gibson is not anti-semitic, despite the evidence of his own words *and* every single Jewish character in 'The Passion of the Christ'. "
I told you. Mel apologized and his father's to blame for the bullshit coming out of his mouth.
markj: "Sommers and Snyder cannot sell movies based on their names. Most people don't even know who they are!"
The "director of 300" did alright for Watchmen, and "the director of the Mummy" did alright for Van Helsing. And Sommers can sell Bay-like movies with any cast.
"When G.I. Joe can make $150 mil domestic can you imagine how much Cameron is gonna rake in? Kids/teenagers are going to love Avatar."
G.I. Joe is an action film. Avatar is an inaction movie.
Posted by DeeZee
at October 22, 2009 9:41 PM
comment #68
Gordon27
says ...
"Did E.T., Jaws, and Schindler's List have stars?"
You're saying that people went to see 'Jaws' because they knew who Steven Spielberg was? That's stupid.
"When Pirahnna 2 can make as much money as Dawn of the Dead, then we'll talk."
You're comparing a Roger Corman movie to a big-budget Hollywood remake of a classic name brand horror movie made amidst the big zombie rennaissance of the early 2000's, and that's not even the stupidest part of that sentence. The stupidest part is that you're attributing 'Dawn of the Dead's success to people knowing who Zack Snyder was prior to 'Dawn of the Dead'. Ridiculous.
"There's no reason Avatar should cost more than Watchmen."
There's no reason why a movie which spent millions of dollars developing new cameras and tens of millions of dollars developing entirely new technologies to produce a fresh new kind of visual effect in three dimensions should cost more than a stupid Hollywood superhero movie with mostly horrible CGI?
Okay. Sure.
"Made-up quotes, huh? "Dickens claimed that he had made Fagin Jewish because "it unfortunately was true, of the time to which the story refers, that that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew"." "
Yes, I acknowledge that Dickens [factually accurate by most accounts] said that most fences in the 1830's were Jews. However, the quote which I was saying you made up was that most Jews were criminals, which is not what the above quote says.
""that Dickens was unhappy that some people thought Fagin was anti-semitic when it was published in serial format, and thus re-wrote portions of it based on the early criticism."
More like he was pressured to do so by an acquaintance. [Same link.]"
No, that was later. He continued to revise it throughout his life because he didn't like people thinking he was anti-semitic and, as he grew more educated on the subject, felt that that single character in one book went a bit too far into unconscious stereotyping.
Why do you provide links if you can't read them and they disprove your actual point? Even the link off of that wikipedia article that is most critical of Fagin and Dickens acknowledges that Dickens was not an anti-semite.
"Mel apologized and his father's to blame for the bullshit coming out of his mouth."
The shit he said would've been anti-semitic even in Dickens's day. It doesn't matter that his father taught him to believe that Jews are bad, what matters is that he believes Jews are bad. Unlike Charles Dickens, who did not believe that Jews were bad (see the same link you provided, "I have no feeling towards the Jews but a friendly one. I always speak well of them, whether in public or private, and bear my testimony (as I ought to do) to their perfect good faith in such transactions as I have ever had with them...")
"The "director of 300" did alright for Watchmen"
'Watchmen' lost money.
"and "the director of the Mummy" did alright for Van Helsing"
'Van Helsing' lost money.
"And Sommers can sell Bay-like movies with any cast."
I love the idea that you think that people saw 'G.I. Joe' because it was the director of 'Van Helsing', not because it is an incredibly iconic and popular franchise that's been around for more than 30 years.
Posted by Gordon27
at October 22, 2009 9:55 PM
comment #69
Gordon27
says ...
Actual quote:
"it unfortunately was true, of the time to which the story refers, that that class of criminal [ed. note: fencers of stolen goods being the "class of criminal" to which Fagin belonged] almost invariably was a Jew"
Filtered through DZ's... well, I hesitate to call it a brain:
"[Dickens] argued that it was normal for them to be depicted as criminals, since that's what a majority of them were in real life"
Posted by Gordon27
at October 22, 2009 9:57 PM
comment #70
Kyle Buchanan
says ...
An interesting read opposite Lynn Hirschberg's Lee Daniels piece in the NYT.
Posted by Kyle Buchanan
at October 24, 2009 4:07 PM
Post a comment