View Full Version : Jim Cameron's "Avatar"


Zorro
07-24-2009, 04:36 PM
http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/technology/2009/07/24/5650463/5650464-1248462892-220x165.jpg

Hollywood places biggest 3-D bet yet on `Avatar'
By RYAN NAKASHIMA

SAN DIEGO — When James Cameron directed his first 3-D film, "Terminator 2: 3-D," for Universal Studios theme parks more than a decade ago, the bulky camera equipment made some shots awkward or impossible.

The 450-pound contraption - which had two film cameras mounted on a metal frame - was so heavy that producers had to jury-rig construction equipment to lift it off the ground for shots from above. The cameras, slightly set apart, had to be mechanically pointed together at the subject, then locked into place like an unwieldy set of eyes to help create the 3-D effect.

At $60 million, the 12-minute film was the most expensive frame-for-frame production ever.

Now, five months from its release, Cameron's "Avatar," the first feature film he has directed since "Titanic" (1997), promises to take 3-D cinematography to an unrivaled level, using a more nimble 3-D camera system that he helped invent.

Cameron's heavily hyped return also marks Hollywood's biggest bet yet that 3-D can bolster box office returns. News Corp.'s 20th Century Fox has budgeted $237 million for the production alone of "Avatar."

The movie uses digital 3-D technology, which requires audience members to wear polarized glasses. It is a vast improvement on the sometimes headache-inducing techniques that relied on cardboard cutout glasses with red and green lenses and rose and fell in popularity in the 1950s.

"Avatar" also raises the bar on "performance capture" technology, which creates computerized images from real human action. The movie depicts an ex-soldier's interactions with 10-foot-tall aliens on the luminous planet of Pandora.

"I'm speechless," said Nahum Villalobos, a 19-year-old Navy recruit from Vista, Calif., who watched 25 minutes of exclusive footage of "Avatar" along with 6,500 people at the Comic-Con convention in San Diego on Thursday. "It's more extraordinary than any other movie that is out there, or has been."

The $237 million production is not as expensive as some 2-D fare such as "Spider-Man 3" (2007), which was made for $258 million. But it blows away "Monsters vs. Aliens" (2009), a 3-D animation movie made for $175 million.
Then again, Cameron's last film grossed $1.84 billion worldwide. "Titanic" is the highest grossing film ever.

"If you know Jim Cameron, it's all about pushing the envelope," said Vince Pace, who helped him develop the 3-D camera system used in "Avatar."

Cameron tweaked his cameras through two 3-D documentaries he made for IMAX theaters, "Ghosts of the Abyss" (2003) and "Aliens of the Deep" (2005).

His camera rig is now lighter - up to only 50 pounds - and the two camera lenses can dynamically converge on a focal point with the help of a computer, which is crucial for sweeping camera moves and action sequences.

In some of the "Avatar" footage released at Comic-Con, humans filmed with his 3-D camera rig are mixed with the computer-generated images of the movie's avatars - beings created with mixed human and alien DNA.

Cameron said he wanted to have the filmmaking techniques fade into the background as the story took over.

"The ideal movie technology is so advanced that it waves a magic wand and makes itself disappear," he said.

Cameron himself was behind the lens in many scenes that were framed using a "virtual camera" - a handheld monitor that lets the director walk through the computer-enhanced 3-D scene and record it as if he were the cameraman. The effect on screen is a "shaky cam" effect that makes action sequences seem up close and sometimes focuses the audience's gaze at something in particular.

"It allows Jim to approach this process with the same sensibilities that he would have approached live-action filming," said producer Jon Landau.

The ability to capture human emotions in computerized 3-D has also advanced.

Unlike past methods that captured dots placed on human faces to trace movements that are reconstructed digitally, now each frame is analyzed for facial details such as pores and wrinkles that help re-create a moving computerized image.

"It's all going to advance the whole concept of 3-D one leap higher," said Marty Shindler, a filmmaking consultant with The Shindler Perspective Inc.

Yet even with four years of preparation and the attention surrounding "Avatar," there will not be enough U.S. screens adapted to the technology for a full wide release only in 3-D.

Of the 38,800 movie screens in the U.S., about 2,500 are capable of showing digital 3-D movies. Theater chains have been adding about 90 to 100 per month this year, but they're still short of the 4,000-plus screens that have been used for major event movies.

With the conversion costing $100,000 a pop, theater owners are wary of moving too quickly, said Patrick Corcoran, director of media and research for the National Association of Theatre Owners.

"The successes of `Monsters vs. Aliens' and `Ice Age (Dawn of the Dinosaurs) in 3-D' aside, this is still really early days for this format," he said.
Studios are pushing theater owners to convert more screens, partly because people pay about $2 more per ticket and cram theaters for 3-D releases. Revenue per screen is up to three times higher than for the same movie's 2-D version.

Walt Disney Co.'s chief executive, Bob Iger, said this week that his studio has 17 3-D films in development, including "A Christmas Carol." That movie, directed by Robert Zemeckis, adopted many of the same performance-capture techniques used in "Avatar" but comes out a month earlier, in November.

Jovan Cohn, a 43-year-old systems engineer from Newport Beach, Calif., watched the "Avatar" preview at Comic-Con and expects to line up with his son for another free look on Aug. 21, when some IMAX theaters will show 15 minutes of the film. Cohn also plans to catch the full movie's release Dec. 18.

"It takes you into a new world of moviegoing and we really think that it's going to be a hit," he said. "No question on that. James Cameron just hit another home run."

jheilman
07-24-2009, 11:04 PM
I'll go see it for sure!

Jafo
07-25-2009, 07:56 AM
cool, it also stars Sigourney Weaver

Lou Dalmaso
07-28-2009, 03:50 PM
Yeah..But what's the STORY?

Am I gonna care about what's going on, or am I just supposed to sit back and watch the pretty pictures?

PhilipMarlowe
07-28-2009, 04:20 PM
Yeah..But what's the STORY?

Am I gonna care about what's going on, or am I just supposed to sit back and watch the pretty pictures?

Given Cameron's track record, I'm pretty confident it's going to be more than pretty pictures. I for one am looking forward to Cameron's return to his sci-fi/action roots. Hard to believe it's been 12 years since his last film.

SJF
07-28-2009, 06:18 PM
I'm so looking forward to seeing this. And I agree with you, PM: it'll be more than just pretty pictures. Cameron always strived to tell a good story.

Sean

hedorah59
07-30-2009, 12:07 PM
My son is a huge Avatar fan and he absolutely hates the previews. On the other hand, I don't watch the cartoon so I have no preconceived notions of how the characters are 'supposed' to look and act. I am a fan of Camerons work so I will probably love it.

jbond
07-30-2009, 01:27 PM
You're getting your Avatars confused; Cameron's Avatar is an original story, while M. Night Shyamalan is directing Avatar: THE LAST AIRBENDER to be released next year. At the moment Cameron's track record is slightly better than Shyamalan's...

hedorah59
07-30-2009, 02:03 PM
You're getting your Avatars confused; Cameron's Avatar is an original story, while M. Night Shyamalan is directing Avatar: THE LAST AIRBENDER to be released next year. At the moment Cameron's track record is slightly better than Shyamalan's...

I blame age! :freak:

Thanks for clearing that up for me - I would've gone expecting a Cameron film and gotten Shyamalan instead! :p

I'm still not sold on the 3-D technology though. We'll have to see with this one.

Lou Dalmaso
07-30-2009, 03:35 PM
I'll agree that Cameron's visuals are usually top notch but his stories (once you strip away the visuals) are less than inspiring.

The Abyss? Alien contact set against the Russian/US conflict? Uh 2010 did it .

Titanic? more of a historical what if, than a real original story

Terminator? ask Harlan about that one.


Just sayin'... I'm willing to be impressed, just don't skimp on substance for the sake of style

Eric K
07-30-2009, 06:00 PM
I'll agree that Cameron's visuals are usually top notch but his stories (once you strip away the visuals) are less than inspiring.

The Abyss? Alien contact set against the Russian/US conflict? Uh 2010 did it .

Titanic? more of a historical what if, than a real original story

Terminator? ask Harlan about that one.


Just sayin'... I'm willing to be impressed, just don't skimp on substance for the sake of style

Ahhhhhh...pooey on youey

Zorro
07-30-2009, 06:11 PM
I'll agree that Cameron's visuals are usually top notch but his stories (once you strip away the visuals) are less than inspiring.

The Abyss? Alien contact set against the Russian/US conflict? Uh 2010 did it .

Titanic? more of a historical what if, than a real original story

Terminator? ask Harlan about that one.


Just sayin'... I'm willing to be impressed, just don't skimp on substance for the sake of style

Howabout a little credit for "execution". Just about any director can affect a "style". Not that many can pull you into a story on a visceral and emotional level and nearly wring you out. Of the three named above, both "The Terminator" and "The Abyss" certainly do that for me - in spades. Even "Titanic" is a well-told tale, albeit a bit too smooth around the edges. I think Cameron deserves a bit more credit here.

PhilipMarlowe
07-30-2009, 08:44 PM
Aliens is my favorite Cameron film, I thought it was almost a perfect movie the first time I saw it, and still enjoy it immensely today. It's up there with "2001" as having some of the best executed SFX scenes of the pre-CGI era imho, and it's one of the few sequels considered superior to original film.

And the first Terminator was an amazing film for a fledgling director with a lot of imagination and little money, no matter what Ellison says.

Carson Dyle
07-31-2009, 01:58 AM
I'll agree that Cameron's visuals are usually top notch but his stories (once you strip away the visuals) are less than inspiring.

Gotta take issue with you on this one, Lou.

I'd be the first to take Cameron to task for his ham-fisted dialogue, but his story sense is first rate.

And if you think The Abyss is anything other than a cinematic watershed you need to give it another look. Granted it has structural issues (what film doesn't), but from a filmmaking standpoint it's a groundbreaking masterpiece; one of the most technologically envelope-pushing movies that will ever be made. I mean, I still can't believe it actually got made considering all the things that could have gone wrong. In terms of the logistical challenges involved it makes 2010 look like a wedding video.

Cameron can be a clumsy wordsmith, but the man isn't afraid to take artistic chances. More importantly, he knows how to craft a compelling story. It's the reason his movies have aged as well as they have.

Lou Dalmaso
07-31-2009, 08:49 AM
Time to get on the Back-Peddle cycle...

I've always enjoyed Cameron's work. He's taken me to worlds I could barely imagine and done it with tremendous skill and loving care.

I just expect him to lavish as much time and energy on his script as he does on his sets and special effects. He is well known for not being exactly "actor friendly"

Sometimes I think he gets a pass where other directors would not is all I'm saying.

JeffG
07-31-2009, 09:24 AM
You're getting your Avatars confused; Cameron's Avatar is an original story, while M. Night Shyamalan is directing Avatar: THE LAST AIRBENDER to be released next year. At the moment Cameron's track record is slightly better than Shyamalan's...
Slightly?

jbond
07-31-2009, 04:04 PM
Ah, that's an example of irony not reading too well in print...

I just got to see the 22 minutes of Avatar they screened at Comic Con. And I will say I also have issues with some of Cameron's screenwriting, while I agree with Carson about the man's chops at story construction. I do think The Abyss is stupendous until the finale where Cameron piles on a bit (I don't ever need to see Chris Elliott wheeping in wonder again).

Avatar does look amazing--specifically it looks amazingly like one of those Michael Whelan cover paintings for the sci fi paperback novels I used to read as a teenager. It looks like a cross between The Dragonriders of Pern, The Dark Crystal and Alan Dean Foster's novel Midworld, something I always wanted to see put on film. That said, Cameron seems very intentional about drawing the viewer in by making characters who are supposed to be living in a society hundreds of years in the future sound like, well, Will Smith in a contemporary action film. Like I said, I think it may be intentional misdirection and stroking of the audience so they'll willingly allow themselves to inhabit a wholly alien world as the film goes on. The "relatability" factor goes to the hardware as well; big machine guns and helicopter gunships and space marines, just like in Aliens. It's easy to go too far the other way and have people wearing velour jumpsuits and talking like Shakespearean IT guys but you'd think a middle ground could be reached. I saw it in 3D, which to me still looks like a moving Viewmaster reel--a bunch of flat planes sandwiched together instead of real depth and texture, although there are a few moments that grab you. The best stuff is actually the slow, atmospheric environmental moments which are spectacular--the 3D doesn't help fast-moving CG creatures in action.

All that said, I can anticipate viewing this movie in theaters several times--it definitely takes you into a world you haven't seen before.