Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Avatar-what's the fuss?

This is topic Avatar-what's the fuss? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005647

Posted by Sally Ann Burgess (Member # 4746) on 12-09-2008, 01:40 AM:

Can someone explain to me exactly what this film will have that hasn't been done before? All I know is that James Cameron has invented some sort of new camera, that it will be released in IMAX 3D, but also in 2D. I've heard that this will be THE film to watch out for in 2009, but apart from being excited that another Cameron movie is coming, what else can I expect? Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, it was either here or STV.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-09-2008, 02:57 AM:

NOTHING is new about it. Everything for this film is hype, and if it's anything like Cameron's other 3-D films, it's just as poorly shot.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-09-2008, 06:41 AM:

Not entirely true. Technically, what Cameron is doing is using a camera system that has the lens spacing quite close to eye spacing (Definitely closer than other 3D attempts).

One issue with stereophotography is getting the lenses at the proper spacing to properly replicate human eye spacing. The physical apsects of the lens and imaging aperture (film or digital) makes that very difficult. As such, all previous 3D photography started with the images spaced further than natural. While you can shift the images to bring the spacing back to normal, your perspective will also shift (you rob Peter to pay Paul).

If I'm not mistaken, Avatar is to be shot all 4K digital.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-09-2008, 08:42 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Technically, what Cameron is doing is using a camera system that has the lens spacing quite close to eye spacing (Definitely closer than other 3D attempts).

Actually it goes way beyond that... it mimicks the interocular spacing automatically depending on the distance and lens focus. It also utilizes the latest Sony 4K cameras.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-09-2008, 09:56 AM:

I guess I'm hoping Avatar will be a big deal, but I'm sure it'll be like every other movie following a big blockbuster. Every writer will either say it's great, or it's not nearly as good as "Titanic." Then when it grosses "only" $250 million, they'll say it was a bomb.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-09-2008, 10:28 AM:

James Cameron says he can't live up to 'Avatar' hype

quote:
The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- Canadian director James Cameron says his upcoming big-budget 3-D movie "Avatar" couldn't possibly live up to the hype on the Internet ahead of its release late next year.

The Internet has been buzzing about the sci-fi thriller shot with motion-capture technology and the 3-D camera system he helped develop with partner Vince Pace.

There are even movie trailers made by fans that apparently have nothing to do with the movie.

"Whatever they think it's going to be, it's probably not," Cameron said on the sidelines of a conference on 3-D entertainment in Los Angeles.

The US$200 million movie is in production ahead of its planned Dec. 18, 2009 release and Cameron does not yet have a trailer prepared.

"We are making the movie in blocks. You can't cut a great trailer right now because so much of the movie would be unrepresented," he said.

When asked about high expectations, the Canadian-born director of all-time U.S. box office record holder "Titanic" said he had stopped trying to meet them.

"I went out and got drunk, contemplated the whole thing and got over it," he said, adding, however, that "Avatar" was "really cool" and "groundbreaking" for its combination of motion capture, computer graphics and live action.

"Sometimes we stop working on it and just stare at it because it's just mesmerizing," he said.

He said he had not met with Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. executives about the marketing plan, but that the movie studio did not want to put out anything too early. The studio is a unit of News Corp.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-09-2008, 11:46 AM:

I wonder if James Cameron is from Canada. The article wasn't very clear on that fact. It is definitely relevant to the story!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-09-2008, 12:21 PM:

Aeyyyyyy

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-09-2008, 03:00 PM:

I forgot about this movie being filmed with motion capture technology. That means everyone will be too busy griping about how the characters' eyes look to notice if it's a good movie or not.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-09-2008, 06:59 PM:

But it also has real peeps in it as well. So the audience will only be distracted by the unnatural creepiness half of the time.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 12-09-2008, 07:11 PM:

I'm guardedly optimistic. The guy has a pretty decent track record.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-09-2008, 07:27 PM:

True, he's never made a movie I didn't like... though I have never seen Piranha 2: The Spawning.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-09-2008, 07:46 PM:

Joe, then you're missing out. [Eek!]

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-09-2008, 11:34 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Not entirely true. Technically, what Cameron is doing is using a camera system that has the lens spacing quite close to eye spacing (Definitely closer than other 3D attempts).

Steve, you're buying the hype. It just ain't so. The average distance between a person's eye is about 65mm (2.6 in). MGM's rig as early as 1941 shot with an interocular of 2.6", and most of the '50s rigs could shoot that and at a shorter interocular, too.

And using the same interocular for every shot is not always right for a shot, nor is it interesting. Wider angle shots require a wider interocular obviously. When Cameron's film comes out, I will go into it with an open mind, but don't think I'm not criticizing his cockiness with these statements that are inherently false.

So that leaves you with the hype that AVATAR is being shot 4k... whoop-dee-doo. Most single-projector RealD projectors in the country today don't even project the L/R images at HD specs, so what will it matter?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-09-2008, 11:43 PM:

What is the movie even about? From the name I must assume it is about an internet forum.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-09-2008, 11:52 PM:

quote: Jack Theakston
And using the same interocular for every shot is not always right for a shot, nor is it interesting.

Can you say "nonsequitur"?

Hint: Cameron's fancy new rig allows for the two cameras to move side to side to increase the interocular distance.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-10-2008, 01:12 AM:

..Yeah, and? Most 3-D cameras have an adjustable interocular. That isn't exactly new or exciting.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-10-2008, 01:31 AM:

But, bottom line is James Cameron and is shooting a movie in 3D...that is what the pubic wants.

Who cares about all of the technical jargon as long as the patrons are getting their "wow!" fix.

Just like XBox360's "Halo3" and Blizzard's "WoW" for the PC: basic old DOS text games massively glorified that offers the "wow" fix to these gamers.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-10-2008, 09:43 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Just like XBox360's "Halo3"

Ha ha, Halo 3 was/is technically VERY primitive, not even running in HD resolutions. It is also a snorefest.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-10-2008, 04:16 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
It is also a snorefest.

...why my daughter and her friend managed to blast through the game in record time and that was it - done playing since the challenges all have been met. [Big Grin]

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 12-10-2008, 07:00 PM:

[ 03-10-2009, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Tyler Potts ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-11-2008, 01:03 AM:

quote: Jack Theakston
..Yeah, and? Most 3-D cameras have an adjustable interocular. That isn't exactly new or exciting.

Jesus christ Jack, I believe that most of us know how the 3-D cameras of the 50's worked and that the Natural Vision camera was the best of the bunch! I hate to tell you that you're still in the dark about the Pace camera... you need to see the demo film which shows how the lensing, automatic interoccular spacing-angling, etc works. Then a 10kw arc will illuminate above your head and you will hear a loud ding!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-11-2008, 03:04 AM:

quote:
Then a 10kw arc will illuminate above your head and you will hear a loud ding!

Dang! with that large of an arc (prob 16mm searchlight arcs..), it'd be more of a "PFFT!" than a "ding!" [Big Grin]

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-11-2008, 04:09 AM:

If you really understood how it works, you wouldn't be regurgitating Cameron's hype.

I've read the promo materials on the Pace camera system, although I admittedly haven't seen their demo reel. Know where I can see it in NY? Based upon what they're writing about, there's little there that hasn't been done before (and what is isn't of any great significance).

So what's the hype all about? There's nothing here that hasn't been done before. Shouldn't they be hyping up this great movie? It's got a great storyline, right? What's it all about? According to the IMDb (which I'm quoting with a grain of salt):

In the future, Jake, a paraplegic war veteran, is brought to another planet, Pandora, which is inhabited by the Na'vi, a humanoid race with their own language and culture. Those from Earth find themselves at odds with each other and the local culture.

Wow. Fascinating. A paraplegic main character bickering with aliens. Lots of interest in those kind of movies today. I can sure see a film like this going over reaaally well. Could knock THE DARK KNIGHT right out of its boots. Yeah.

No way Cameron is hyping up his 3-D system because he knows his film stinks, right? And there's no better way to hype up technology than to say you're the first at doing something and knocking everyone else, right?

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-11-2008, 04:13 PM:

Jack,

Hasn't Cameron had some previous success with movies dealing with aliens or with the future? I seem to remember something...

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-11-2008, 04:32 PM:

He does seem to know how to put on an entertaining show.

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'll hold my opinion on it until I see it with my own [eyes]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-11-2008, 05:21 PM:

If it's in the future, why is Jake still paraplegic? Can't they fix those things in the future? I thought I saw that on Star Trek.

Maybe he's stuck in a society with universal health care and is on a long waiting list or something.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-11-2008, 05:39 PM:

Christopher Reeve is dead so paralysis will never be cured.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-11-2008, 05:48 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
James Cameron and is shooting a movie in 3D...that is what the pubic wants.

Who's? James Cameron's? [Razz]

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-11-2008, 09:57 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Maybe he's stuck in a society with universal health care and is on a long waiting list or something.

HAHAHA

quote: Joe Redifer
Christopher Reeve is dead so paralysis will never be cured.

A reminder of yet another classic, albeit disgusting, episode of South Park

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 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.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 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.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 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.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 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.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.