James Cameron's Avatar - news, rumors, castings..

[Nick Martin]

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum

Spruce Goose, huh? And we all know what happened to that one.

There have been probably dozens of movies filmed in that hangar, so for anyone to make some kind of point about it regarding its eventual success or lack thereof doesn't make much sense at all.

[Solid Snake PAC]

ditto...

[NoirFan]

Scans of on-set photos

[CharlieK]

NYT article on the hype so far.

[RocShemp]

The only Cameron film I didn't like was Titanic (I don't recall ever seeing Piranha Part Two: The Spawning at all), so I'm fairly certain I'll enjoy this one.

[Solid Snake PAC]

Don't ever want to seee Piranha 2. NEVER. Anyway...Titanic was the one where I never understood all the big deal about it. Yes, Winslet gets naked and she is attrative..but overrall..the movies kinda simple. Production amazes me no matter what....freaking insane detail.

[LickTheABCs]

According to the threadmeisters at Film Crew T-Shirts, the running time of James Cameron’s Avatar is going to be… drum roll please… 189 minutes. How would they know? Well, I assume they’ve fostered some strong relationships with members of, quite obviously, film crews, and furthermore that one of these folks is a crew member on Avatar. Far from impossible.

now if only we can get it to be R rated...

[Matthew Chmiel]

If it's 189 minutes, I'm assuming the film will only be playing in selected IMAX theaters that are digital only (i.e. fake IMAX).

[KillerCannibal]

I'm hoping that, since it's Cameron, he'll find a way to make it work in a REAL IMAX theater.

[RichC2]

If anyone can make a 189 minute movie entertaining beginning to end, it's Cameron. Hope he hasn't lost his touch.

[chris_sc77]

189 MINUTES!!!!!
I just filled 2 cups!
Im doing the happy dance. IM doin the happy dance.
I've been thinking about Cameron films recently (and reading the ALIENS novelization) and I wish more films had like an hour of characterization before we really get any action.
This is the first I have been excited at all for this film but now I am stocked.
You can always count on Cameron to tell a good COMPLETE story in a film he makes.
He never leaves me wanting.
Oh and i cannot wait to see in this a normal movie theater in the beautiful scope format! (not htat bullshit flat aspect ration in Imax or whatever the hell that is.)
I hope after this though Cameron does make an R-rated film again.

[Matthew Chmiel]

Originally Posted by KillerCannibal

I'm hoping that, since it's Cameron, he'll find a way to make it work in a REAL IMAX theater.

So he'll be funding the money to up the IMAX platters to 3 and a half hours?

[KillerCannibal]

Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel

So he'll be funding the money to up the IMAX platters to 3 and a half hours?

Well, it's not like he doesn't have it...

[Paul1957]

Cameron on AVATAR - 3D will be 1.85 to 1 and 2D will be full Scope.
Cameron never thought he’d shoot a new movie in 1.85 ratio, but he loves the way 3D looks in that ratio, so audiences seeing the film in 3D will get a 1.78 presentation versus audiences who see the film in scope (widescreen) in 2D.

- He seemed unusually humble and said that “Avatar” may not make film history, but there are a few shots in the film that he knows for certain will be quite memorable, saying that he has his crew just got something back from the lab that made them say, “what the fuck?” (further fueling the “fucking our eyeballs” fire).

- He also said that the CG special effects aren’t necessarily revolutionary, but he believes that the way he’s shooting the film, with a camera that can give him and the actors instant feedback with a rendered image that loosely replicates what will be on screen in the final product, could very well change moviemaking. (He said the rendering looks like an “80’s video game” right now, but technology should advance to the point where it could look like the final product while they're filming on set.)

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41244

[Zen Peckinpah]

Over 3 hours, eh? Considering we've been waiting so long for James Cameron/God to make another movie, we deserve it. I'll be there opening day.

[Suprmallet]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

Oh and i cannot wait to see in this a normal movie theater in the beautiful scope format! (not htat bullshit flat aspect ration in Imax or whatever the hell that is.)
I hope after this though Cameron does make an R-rated film again.

Wait, so now you hate 1.85:1 and 1.77:1 movies as well? Good god, man!

By the way, Cameron is composing the movie for 1.77:1 and cropping it for scope in 2D. Have fun with that.

[BullGooseLoony]

Originally Posted by Zen Peckinpah

Over 3 hours, eh? Considering we've been waiting so long for James Cameron/God to make another movie, we deserve it. I'll be there opening day.

Exactly.

When I read that it was a bit of "surprising news," I feared the worst: a 90-minute Cameron movie. Not that that would be terrible, but yes, after 12 years, we need more.

[Jaymole]

As I am not a fan of True Lies, and I hated Titanic, I am just happy that he is returning to the sci-fi genre again which is where he has done his best work. 189 minutes sounds like an epic style film, so my expectations are really rising right now.

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by Suprmallet

Wait, so now you hate 1.85:1 and 1.77:1 movies as well? Good god, man!

By the way, Cameron is composing the movie for 1.77:1 and cropping it for scope in 2D. Have fun with that.

I prefer Scope to the flat aspect ratio , yes but I certanly dont hate flat. I mean ALIENS is flat (although I do wish it was scope. it stands out in the series as the one shot in 1.85 ratio). I think that ratio fits some films just like 1.33 suits some films. I do like seeing big budget films in scope though.

I do however HATE me some Imax and 3D. Gimmicks, gimmicks, gimmicks that I will never, ever support.

[Ash Ketchum]

A 189-minute geekfest in 3-D with no real stars? Sounds like this one will go the way of WATCHMEN, with fanboys ecstatic while average moviegoers tell their friends to stay home. TITANIC was 194 min., but it had a bonafide star in Di Caprio, at what we now know was his peak; a love story that drew in millions of women; and a well-known maritime disaster at the heart of its story that lent itself to cinematic treatment. 90% of the audience for it didn't know or care who Cameron was.

AVATAR will have to be at least as crowd-pleasing as STAR TREK and UP in order to even start pulling in their kind of numbers and make any kind of profit, given its huge expense--$300 million and counting. Cameron's been away from the crowds for 12 years now and immersed in his technical tweaking and experimenting. Does he even know what audiences want? Does he have what it takes to pull something spectacular, moving, and entertaining out of his bag of tricks and wow the masses and not just you guys? I don't know much about this film other than what I've read on the web, but it sounds like a pretty standard sci-fi adventure to me and needs some kind of a hook, something more than state-of-the-art 3-D to get the audience's attention and get them to commit to a 3-hour-plus evening at the theater. And without a clue what the movie looks like, I'm just not seeing it.

[gmanca]

The movie's coming out in December, so it's not like they won't have time to build up anticipation once the film's look has been revealed. There are far too many people saying it looks like nothing "we've" ever seen to not be a big box-office film. There is really no way this film is going to be short of innovative or good, it's just a question of how good and revolutionary. You also have Cameron selling his new digital effects-integrated camera system, not to mention the possible start of 3D TV viewing, so it's not just ticket or DVD sales were talking about.

And I don't see how being away from movies for 12 years matters to whether he knows what audiences want; the guy sure seemed to know what they wanted and people haven't changed all that much.

[KillerCannibal]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

I do however HATE me some Imax and 3D. Gimmicks, gimmicks, gimmicks that I will never, ever support.

I'll agree that the 3-D resurgence is gimmicky, albeit a fun one, but IMAX is fucking amazing when you see the right film on one. Star Trek was simply awesome on an IMAX screen, a fact no one can deny. Well, unless you saw it on a fake IMAX screen, that is...

[bdshort]

How in the world would anyone know the length of this movie down to the minute already? It's not even coming out for another 6 months, so I find it hard to believe that they're even approaching anything resembling a final edit. Then again, maybe the FX are so expensive, they made sure they had a mostly final edit so they only had to do the FX for scenes that would actually be in the movie?

[Suprmallet]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

I prefer Scope to the flat aspect ratio , yes but I certanly dont hate flat. I mean ALIENS is flat (although I do wish it was scope. it stands out in the series as the one shot in 1.85 ratio). I think that ratio fits some films just like 1.33 suits some films. I do like seeing big budget films in scope though.

I do however HATE me some Imax and 3D. Gimmicks, gimmicks, gimmicks that I will never, ever support.

IMAX is a gimmick? That is a truly clueless statement. You do know how film works, right?

As for 3D, I would say most 3D films would work as well in 2D, but supposedly Cameron has really pushed the envelope and he personally believes that 3D can have a genuine impact on the way people experience movies. For that alone I will see it in 3D.

Also, I'm sure there were people who said, "Talking pictures? What a stupid gimmick!" And then "Color? What a stupid gimmick!" And then "Widescreen? What a stupid gimmick!" And so on.

[bdshort]

I sort of agree with him on 3D, but then again I've never had the chance to watch a feature film in 3D. I don't understand the IMAX comment though... isn't it just like seeing it in a regular theater but on a much bigger screen and with more powerful sound? We're not talking about the IMAX theaters with the big dome screens are we, just the ones with the massive slightly curved screens? Never seen a feature film in an IMAX theater either, incidentally