my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Avatar-what's the fuss? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Avatar-what's the fuss? Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 12-12-2008 01:04 AM                     quote: Hillary Charles Jack, I would have thought you'd be interested in anything that helps establish 3D as something more than a fad. I don't know if this is it, but it could be a big step toward that direction. I am, but not to the point of sacrificing quality, which is what is happening. I'm also not a fan of false marketing, which most of the companies responsible for modern 3-D films are blatantly guilty of. I'm even less thrilled with the fact that as many people are as gullible as they are, particularly reporters on this type of information. I view the financial crux of this film as a 50/50. If AVATAR does well, then great; that means that 3-D is financially successful and we can move on to hopefully better things. If it doesn't do well, then I can't say I didn't tell you so. I'm just here pointing out the misinformation because I know there are a number of people that are invested in this non-sense. Remember that old phrase "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? Never has that rung true more than today. You'll find that the exact same chain of events were happening 53 years ago. Once again, everyone is unanimous in their desire for BIG SCREEN (ie. CinemaScope or IMAX) over 3-D. Exhibitors hate the technological end of it and the money they have to dump into it, studios hate producing this stuff because they don't have a good business model and it requires extra effort and money, and the public could care less about 3-D if it hurts their eyes and they have to wear glasses (although the latter is a pretty dumb reason). Was JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH the big hit this summer? It did okay on the terms that it's a kids film and parents are starved for kiddie content, but what raked up the big bucks this year? THE DARK KNIGHT, of course, particularly in *IMAX* venues. quote: Chad Souder Hasn't Cameron had some previous success with movies dealing with aliens or with the future? I seem to remember something... Cameron's a one-trick pony. He's usually doing a sci-fi film regarding the future (Aliens or the Terminator), or something nautical (Titanic). Sometimes both (The Abyss). Just my opinion, but I find his films very fast food-ish. However, this is nothing against him as a businessman, since his films do make stupid amounts of money.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-12-2008 03:48 AM                     ...sounds like we're a bit jealous of Cameron here, eh Jack? "Stupid" amounts of money is what we ALL would like to make, but we have to make due in what we got and how to play the cards in our hand to keep the best trump card for the last trick. Obviously, Cameron has and is playing the deck pretty well - he's been pretty successful in winning, I'd say. He's kept his "resume' polished pretty well - not jumping into clinkers that some other directors fall into from time to time.  |  IP: Logged Anslem Rayburn Master Film Handler Posts: 476 From: Yuma, AZ, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 12-12-2008 05:34 AM                     One-trick pony, then name 3 different ponies? Terminator, True Lies, Titanic, The Abyss, Aliens. I would like to have that kind of resume when I'm 43. He's done personal projects since Titanic, because he can. I'm not a huge Cameron fan, I personally think most of his stuff is overrated. But he pushes the medium forward, and he puts butts in seats. I can respect him for that, even if I don't like most of his work.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 12-12-2008 07:17 AM                    I'd like to see him do the last Harry Potter movie(s) because he'd actually shoot them in 3D to start with instead of shooting one eye and then faking the other for parts of the movie later.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 12-12-2008 09:15 AM                     quote: Anslem Rayburn Terminator, True Lies, Titanic, The Abyss, Aliens. Again, I reiterate that he's a great businessman. But with the exception of THE TERMINATOR, all of those films do not hold up for me. Artistically, I find Cameron to be bland. That's not my point, though. quote: Monte L Fullmer ...sounds like we're a bit jealous of Cameron here, eh Jack? There's nothing for me to be jealous of. I'm not a film maker and I'm successful in what I do in my own life. I have issues with Cameron because he and his cronies are lying to people and people are buying it. If it just him saying "Yeah, we're shooting in 3-D, and I think it's going to be a good film," then fine. But he's saying "we're doing this first, and we're doing that way better than anyone else ever did," when in reality, the body of his work in this category show that he really has very little concept of what he's doing. Modern 3-D has the ability to be quite good, but it isn't, because no one is paying attention to what they're doing, and no one who is watching it knows any better to say it's no good.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-12-2008 11:06 AM                     quote: Jack Theakston I have issues with Cameron because he and his cronies are lying to people and people are buying it. Any movie producer has to lie his butt off to hype a project in how great it is. They have to "sell" a studio on getting the project green-lit and continually play head games back and forth to prevent the project being tripped up by various factors involving ego and company politics. Once the movie is nearing release, the producers have to spin stories so much more to get media attention and generate buzz. What Cameron is doing in hyping Avatar is really no different than what you see in countless other big budget productions. Regarding the quality of his movies, that 100% subjective. His movies do make money. Ultimately that's the only thing that counts. Lots of gifted filmmakers have seen careers go nowhere by making great films that didn't make any money. The quality of new digital 3D systems can be debated. However, these new digital systems seem more reliable. A friend of mine who manages our local Carmike theater told me horror stories of running Friday the 13th Part III in 3D. Finally, 3D and large format film should never be described as an "either/or" equation. 3D movies can be produced in large film formats, not just IMAX either. It would be preferable for any live action 3D movie to be shot on film rather than HDTV quality video. It already seems clear 3D will be more popular for CGI-based animated movies rather than anything live action. For live action movies, I believe Hollywood needs to change direction from its obsession with video cameras and get back into shooting movies in film formats larger than 4-perf 35mm. The Blu-ray disc of Baraka definitely shows that producing in large format and post producing in high resolution digital intermediates is worth it. The new Blu-ray disc of The Dark Knight backs up that point. The TDK footage originated in IMAX and VistaVision looks a LOT BETTER than any of the standard anamorphic 35mm sourced footage. I'd like to see 65mm/70mm make a big comeback. But 8/35 VistaVision production would be nearly as good.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 12-12-2008 06:53 PM                        Agree with you Bobby, but 8/35 Technirama would be the best. The large format features of decades past look great now but with today’s film stocks they would look wonderful. The problem is that the majority of films are scanned for editing ease and fx work, so much of the original quality is lost.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-12-2008 07:09 PM                     I think digital intermediate use is here to stay. DI isn't such a bad thing if the image is acquired at as high a level of resolution that can be managed and/or budgeted. The trick is getting Hollywood to let go of that old 2K standard. Now that we have examples on Blu-ray like Baraka and The Dark Knight that clearly show the investment in high resolution production pays off on home video perhaps more movie studios will embrace that kind of thing. If they want the best image quality, even on Blu-ray, they'll have to consider shooting on large format film.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.