James Cameron was greeted by two fans at the Arlington Theater yesterday, each dressed as Na’Vi and claiming they weren’t from Pandora, but from one of the moons of Pandora. This prompted Cameron to say:
“I can’t say anything about the other moons and the Polyphemus system because that’s top secret because they are going to appear in the sequel.“
With the Consumer Electronics Show in full-swing, one thing has become crystal clear: the electronics industry is hell-bent on making consumers look like complete tools by the end of the year. By “tool” I mean, “Who is that dork sitting on the sofa wearing the nerdy 3D glasses?”
3D TVs are all the rage. Every major television manufacturer, and a few minor ones, are jumping on the bandwagon without hesitation. ESPN and DirecTV have both announced imminent, full-time 3D channels. Sony has finalized their specifications for 3D Blu-Ray and the industry will have the home version of Avatar to use as consumer-bait.
But…we’re still going to look like complete tools with our 3D glasses.
Is this really what the consumers wants? Probably not. I think it is safe to say we want 3D without the frickin’ glasses. It’s not just the aesthetic-hit your once macho appearance will take, but the real, cold hard facts of reality that will take its toll. WTF am I talking about?
I’m talking about your dog munching on your beloved pair of 3D glasses while you are at work. I am talking about your rug-rat kids bending, throwing, playing and breaking your 3D glasses. I am talking about your 3D glasses disappearing under the sofa or between the cushions. I am talking about your big, fast ass sitting down hard on that pair of 3D glasses.
3D glasses only work in theory and the safety of an IMAX theater. All other locations will spell constant hassle and small-scale disasters.
Hence, this brave new world they want us so desperately to enter will only work sans glasses.
Beyond the hurdles of every-day life we have the tech itself. Everything on display at CES is first-generation technology without a unified standard. Early-adopters will undoubtedly be screwed by the time the second generation is greatly improved and enhanced. The 3D TV you buy today could be tomorrow’s HD-DVD.
So wait. Be patient. What is available now will be considered garbage by CES 2011, a date that will hopefully see a whole new generation of 3D that can be attained without glasses and the punishing hit to your fashion sense.
Fandango has revealed some interesting statistics in regards to Avatar. All data is based upon customer surveys completed by ticket buyers for Cameron’s 3D epic:
* 76% consider themselves fans of James Cameron
* 45% say that “James Cameron’s return as a director” was the main draw
* 75% say it’s important for them to see the movie in IMAX 3D
* 72% say the positive advance reviews have increased their interest in the movie
* 70% say they do not care about the film’s budget
* 72% had seen STAR TREK in theaters
* 62% had seen TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN in theaters
* 48% had seen TERMINATOR SALVATION in theaters
* 68% of ticket-buyers are male
* 15% are ages 18-24
* 37% are ages 25-34
* 33% are ages 35-49
Whether or not Avatar will be the blockbuster James Cameron is hoping for or not remains to be seen, though indications are looking positive in his favor. So what is next for Cameron? Another 10-year break between films? Hopefully not. While Mr. Cameron has indicated in previous interviews that he wants to do two more Avatar films and a remake of Fantastic Voyage, he’s had one project in the wings for a long time: Battle Angel Alita, based on the Japanese manga of the same name. What’s the status?
“The mixture of live-action and CG is a little trickier in 3-D than it is 2-D,” Cameron told MTV News. “Now we see it’s good to have done ‘Avatar’ first before ‘Battle Angel,’ because the tricky scenes are where you’re blending live-action photography, stereoscopic photography and CG.”
“Shooting live stuff in 3-D and then adding CG characters and landscapes beyond that, that’s a little tricky,” he explained.
As for where the film stands, Cameron seemed to indicate that “Alita” is still on his radar — though he hasn’t progressed to the point of casting the film thus far.
“We’re not that far down the line,” he said. “We have a very good script and we’ve done a lot of production design. We’ve done about a year of production design and we’ve put together an art reel that shows the arc of the film.”
“It’s pretty much just add water and we’re ready to go,” he laughed.
Major movie critics were allowed to see James Cameron’s Avatar in England yesterday with orders not to publish their reviews until next Monday. Funny thing about embargoes: once one site breaks it, the rest fall in line, and we can thank the Hollywood Reporter for jumping the gun and opening the floodgates.
So what’s the word? Is Avatar a $400-million piece of crap? The second coming of cinema?
The King of the World sets his sights on creating another world entirely in “Avatar,” and it’s very much a place worth visiting. Cameron delivers again with a film of universal appeal that just about everyone who ever goes to the movies will need to see.
A dozen years later, James Cameron has proven his point: He is king of the world. … he brings science-fiction movies into the 21st century with the jaw-dropping wonder that is “Avatar.” … The movie is 161 minutes and flies by in a rush. Repeat business? You bet.
Avatar is an overwhelming, immersive spectacle. The state-of-the-art 3D technology draws us in, but it is the vivid weirdness of Cameron’s luridly imagined tropical otherworld that keeps us fascinated.
An epic film born entirely of Cameron’s imagination, Avatar uses tailor-made technology to create the most astonishing visual effects yet seen on screen and blends them seamlessly into a mythical sci-fi story.
Game-changing – yes. Spectacular – absolutely. Occasional dodgy dialogue and dramatic imperfections – of course. But still – wait for it – a titanic achievement.
With Avatar opening in a month, many Hollywood analysts and journalists are preparing and publishing stories that focus on the bloated budget, the troubled history of 3D movies, and the likelihood that Avatar has the potential to be the biggest bomb in cinema history. Now, all of this sounds very familiar, as I heard and read all these stories when the subject was instead Titanic, which proved itself the most successful movie ever made.
Having seen the exclusive 15-minute 3D preview several months ago, I can safely say that whatever experience you’ve had with 3D in the past has no bearing on what you are about to witness on the big-screen. Judging the visual quality of the movie based on 2D trailers is futile.
Now we have Kim Masters of The Daily Beast droning on about Hollywood concerns, going the extra mile to say that because Robert Zemeckis’ latest 3D movie, A Christmas Carol, tanked at the box office that there is great cause for concern when it comes to Avatar. How these two movies relate is beyond me. The only thing they have in common is “3D” and even there they use two completely different processes. That, and very few people give a crap about Charles Dickens or A Christmas Carol, or Robert Zemeckis’ sloppy version of a classic tale.
Still, she describes Avatar as “iffy.” And that may not be the adjective that executives at Fox and their partners on the film want to hear. Given that it’s taken 12 years for Cameron to produce a follow up to Titanic, and considering the immense cost of the technology, the industry and the media have been guessing at Avatar’s budget, with the Los Angeles Times recently putting it at $310 million with additional marketing costs of about $150 million. Other estimates are even higher. (Fox co-chairman Jim Gianopulos told Reuters earlier this week that rumors the movie will cost $500 million are “ridiculous,” acknowledging nonetheless that it was “quite expensive.”)
Loading ...
Loading ...