April 27, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
DP, do theaters get a higher percentage of receipts for 3D versus 2D? I am wondering if though 3D might be boosting BO, the money back to the studio is negligible.
I’m not talking about Avatar’s gross and what 3D might’ve contributed to it in a straight nickel and dime sense. It’s the 3D and mo-cap and created the hype around Avatar in the first place — that’s what created its importance and why everybody needed to see it. This isn’t a question of: Did the 3D pricing affect it from $900M vs. $1B? The 3D created the movie’s perception. Without it, if this was a standard blockbuster, it probably would’ve been content to do $4-500M ww.
That said, when I started debating Avatar’s 3D, it wasn’t an issue of its grosses. I was talking about how it would affect film vs. digital movies.
I questioned whether the burst in 3D moviemaking and distribution would hit Kodak on the top end, where it’s already been hit on the bottom. A perfectly reasonable question. And you brushed that off, saying movies were already going digital.
Well, the reality is, most studios still shoot their features on celluloid. Most filmmakers still prefer celluloid. Why? Because they think it looks better. Even Fincher thinks film looks better — he shoots digital because he’s hooked on the workflow. And Jackson, a big proponent of RED, only used that camera for the afterlife sequences of Lovely Bones, using 35mm for the bulk.
So, since most filmmakers prefer the look of film to digital, my proposition was whether shooting 3D, which is a fundamentally different form, would now attract filmmakers who wouldn’t normally be interested in digital? So far, it’s worked with Spielberg.
The thing that’s going to kill film is not just a gradual shift. The shift has been going on for 25 years. Kubrick edited Full Metal Jacket on a digital system called Montage in the mid-80s. What’s going to kill film is when Kodak can no longer afford to keep manufacturing mass quantities of celluloid. And by being burnt at both the indie end and now the majors with 3D, that could be the final thing that pushes it, because 3D will be the major factor ushering in more digital projection now.
Whoa…well I am going to reply with a similar argument I made in the previous thread, which has grown rather unwieldy.
Basically, I agree with you mostly on the animation side, though there are clearly exceptions. The Toy Story 3D re-release, which pulled in 30 million but essentially was made to raise awareness of the 3rd movie is one. Disney’s apparent zeal to re-release hand-drawn animated films theatrically in 3D (starting with Beauty and the Beast) is another. Honestly that decision seems bewildering until you factor in something no one here has discussed to my knowledge. 3D TV which Newsweek sums up nicely in this article and is the real reason Im betting Disney and George Lucas (with Star Wars) are chomping at the bit to re-release their films in 3D:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/211747
I think the advent of 3D TV, personally, if the reviews of Panasonic’s early models are to be believed is the new “must-have” but on a bigger scale than a Blu-Ray or maybe even an HDTV. It’s the ultimate status symbol.
Throw in recent interviews with Peter Jackson and James Cameron that make the claim that 3D without glasses is only 4 or 5 years away, and you’ve got the makings of an entire new industry.
Dave, I think you’re being disingenous in saying “six 3D movies grossed 100m domestically.” First off it was seven movies domestically (Up, GForce, Monsters Vs Aliens, A Christmas Carol, Ice Age 3, Avatar and Cloudy Meatballs) that hit 100 million. Futhermore, Final Destination 4 hit 183 million worldwide, making it the top worldwide horror film of the year by a massive margin, Coraline hit 120 million worldwide which is best ever for stop-motion and My Bloody Valentine hit 100 million, which is freaking EXCELLENT for that title. Of the four that didn’t hit 100 million WW, two were limited releases, one was a re-release, and the exception was the Jonas Brothers concert film. Call of the Wild was an IMAX release.
Also to answer someone’s previous claim of “Journey” underperforming…it was the only summer film to do 5x opening or even come close…largely due to 3D. It was also Fraser’s biggest non-Mummy film since “George of the Jungle.” To label it as underperforming is nuts. It opened weakly against the massing Dark Knight competition, but had outstanding legs.
On the other hand, to be fair, I ENTIRELY agree DP’s assesment of “it’s too soon to tell” on 3D and am grateful you used my Chocolate Factory analogy (and the 10% one). I think that will be an indicator for people in coming months. I’m not sure assesing franchises such as “Step Up,” “Saw” and “Friday 13th” is fair. Saw will almost certainly outperform the previous installment without Paranormal Activity. “Step Up 2” had a rare formula…a lesser cast was contrasted with a far superior movie as far as the dance aspects with, and the best original movie soundtrack of 2008 which makes it unique among sequals. Perhaps “Friday” is an okay comparison.
The best comparisons I see for next year though are: Alice vs Chocolate Factory, Piranha vs Bloody V, Shrek, Jackass and Toy Story vs previous installments, Yogi Bear vs Alvin, Rapunzel vs Princess and the Frog and Tron Legacy in general.
Too long a post…as you would say…onward.
Not disingenuous about 6 or 7, Ethan… just a victim of Box Office Mojo sloppiness. Seriously… why would I care about one more?
As far as other details… it’s a bit silly to yank The Final Destination out as horror. It was a horrible year for horror… everywhere. And this film got almost the dollar-for-dollar jump that the Saw series did overseas from #2 to #3. Saw then started falling off. This is what I mean when I talk about not quite being able to distinguish causes. The rest of the world tends to get to our franchises later, stay longer then we us by a movie or two, then to deteriorate much as we did a film or two earlier. That could be every bit as responsible for TFD’s international growth as 3D.
Coraline is $100 million behind Chicken Run as far as the stop-motion record… and is probably behind Nightmare Before X’mas too. Still, a terrific number, probably helped by the 3D sell, but hardly definitive. Do you think 9 would have doubled its gross if it were in 3D?
And yeah… My Bloody Valentine 3D did over $100 million worldwide. So did Paranormal Activity. What are we proving?
As far as 3D without glasses… that is the end of 3D as a premium and the mainstreaming to the point of it being just another aesthetic choice. That’s great. But the industry will fight that.
The balance of hype and revenue vs technology is tenuous. If every movie is super, than no movie is super. And anyone hoping that all ticket prices are heading to $15 from $10, they are industrially suicidal. Overpricing – combined with technological opportunity – killed the record business. It could still kill the movie business too… if crazy greed proliferates, whether in the form of 3D or any other form.
And Mutiny, not sure where you get some of these ideas.
3D is most certainly NOT the driver of digital projection.
Digital Projection has been a fight for a full decade… a fight over who would pay for it. It’s not an aesthetic issue. It’s been estimated by studios to represent a $2 billion a year savings for the studios in prints, print maintenance, and shipping costs.
Thank goodness for the delay, as it has led to much higher quality, more consistent projectors. But the issue was always over studios trying to get exhibitors to pay for it and exhibitors, realizing that they were save nothing and be taking on massive debt to convert, saying “no.”
The tipping point was reached last year and the changeover has begun.
Even if you were to argue that 3D has added $500m to coffers this year – too high – that is still a quarter of what the savings of going 100% digital projection offers. That savings is The Grail.
In terms of video killing the celluloid star, again, 3D is not the issue. As you wrote, “he shoots digital because he’s hooked on the workflow.” And as the high-end digital cameras become more affordable and even easier to use – overcoming some of the horrible images of the past and big issues with lighting – the use of the technology becomes more attractive.
And in the case of Spielberg, it’s not the 3D environment that is key, but the fact that the movie is motion capture.
I’m not trying to blow off your question about the high end and Kodak. They are in real trouble, not because of 3D, but because the digital universe is encroaching on celluloid quality more and more. When you can’t tell the difference, the battle will be done and Kodak will be sold off as a brand name for retro products.
Nope.
Movies I ONLY saw because of the 3d:
Monsters vs. Aliens
Ice Age 3
In both cases, the 3d was pretty much all I liked about them.
I’m not saying 3D is the driver of digital projection. But when you start having 3D hits, it lights a fire under the ass of conversion.
I think you’re looking at 3D, because it’s different, as a sort of side show. I’m looking at 3D, because it’s different, as the thing that sparks digital acquisition.
The conversion to digital projection was being pushed long before studios started allowing filmmakers to go digital in acquisition. Fincher had to fight to shoot digital and had to design his workflow on his own first. Acquisition and distribution are two different things. Most filmmakers are content to shoot on film for higher quality, then go through DI for color-correction — they consider it the best of both worlds.
Whether it’s 3D or mo-cap that got Spielberg to do Tin Tin (both are Cameron’s developments here), the point is that unless digital could fundamentally do something that film couldn’t, he wouldn’t be using it. He loves film. And I think, whether it’s mo-cap or 3D, or a combo, it’s tech like this that will bring over filmmakers who wouldn’t normally be interested.
“Whether it’s 3D or mo-cap that got Spielberg to do Tin Tin (both are Cameron’s developments here)”
wrong. the mocap tech developed for avatar was done in conjunction with weta d and weta d holds proprietary rights to the tech
Developed by Cameron. Yes, the deal is that WETA gets proprietary. Who’s idea was it for how it was all going to be done? Cameron. His idea for the camera rigs, etc. The use of mo-cap on Avatar was under Cameron’s direction.
It’s a fad that cycles in and out of favor every decade or so. I can remember back in the 80’s when TV stations made a big deal about showing 30 year old 3D films and had us all going to the local Piggly Wiggly to get the glasses.
I saw AVATAR in IMAX 3D at The Bridge and all of the usual problems with 3D were still there, so I don’t think this film is doing anything more than pushing the fad along for another year or so. In the end, people will still have issues with the strobing (a major problem for action films, which is what everyone is going to want to make in 3D for the next year) and my own pet peeve, dictated focus.
When you are in a 3D environment, you want to look around. Yet, several times during AVATAR, the focal plane was limited to just one area. To me, it seems you can’t really do that with 3D movies, as part of the experience is being able to look where you want to look within the frame.
Perhaps this time, it will stick around as a gimmick for big tentpoles, but once the specialness wears off I doubt it will become a required enhancement.
Now, Smell-O-vision, that really needs a comeback…
It may be even harder than one thinks to quantify the value of 3D– for the last movie that I saw in 3D (Up), my theater didn’t offer a choice– it was 3D or nothing. Its quite possible that I would have chosen the cheaper 2D option were it available (3D didn’t add anything to “Up”, imo). I wonder how common this scenario is.
“Developed by Cameron. Yes, the deal is that WETA gets proprietary. Who’s idea was it for how it was all going to be done?”
again, mutiny, you have no idea what you’re talking about. maybe you should find out before going on a crusade
That’s the deal, Leah. Or, at least, that’s how I read it explained in interview after interview. Maybe Cameron is taking credit that he shouldn’t. If you know better show me.
well, that’s your problem right there, mutiny; you think because you read something in an interview on the internet that you actually KNOW something about the subject at hand, and then pretend you know what you’re talking about thereafter. the internet: the biggest contributor to the ship of fools in the history of fools on a ship
Interviews with Cameron, Leah.
Why are you so upset at the idea that the camera rig was Cameron’s idea? WETA had to actually build it and tech it. But I don’t know why you’d be so upset that it was Cameron’s idea to do that in the first place.
I’ve said all along that the whole 3D revolution has been sent to the front burner because you cannot illegally pirate 3D. Studios/theaters can also charge MORE for 3D because it’s so neat-o. I have the same theory about the reemergence of vinyl; you can’t pirate vinyl.
Plus, and Jamie- I still think you’re in the minority on thinking the 3D for “Avatar” wasn’t that great. I thought it was amazing and people are loving it. I also think you were right that it didn’t *need* to be in 3D but would the movie be as huge as it is if it wasn’t?? Is the lack of available 3D piracy software adding to the films gross?? I think so. And, the other thing we all gripe about- 3D improves the movie going experience.
mutiny, you originally said the mo-cap tech was “cameron’s development”. no, it wasn’t, it was developed by weta d in a joint venture with cameron in which the facial capture tech from kong was improved upon.
so now you’re changing your story from the thing is “cameron’s development” to saying the facial capture rig was camermon’s idea. well, that’s partially correct. the simple fact is, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’ve just read stuff and think you’re some expert
Don, I think the reason I wasn’t into Avatar’s 3D so much was discussed in the last topic between Jeff and I, where we noted that Cameron shot the movie the same as if it was 2D. Same language sensibility. Whereas, for me, I wanted to see 3D used specifically as 3D. I look at 3D as an opportunity to add to the film form and language, and I was disappointed that wasn’t the intention here.
I’m not changing anything, Leah. Was a head rig used in Kong? Not to my knowledge. Was the camera rig Cameron’s idea for Avatar? Based on what I’ve read, yes. Did he physically build it? No. That was WETA. I said “developed.” You’re just adding WETA into the equation, that’s all, and splitting hairs. But Cameron is the public face.
“not to my knowledge”
that’s says it all right there. not to your knowledge? what knowledge? you have no actual ‘knowledge’ of anything re: the facial capture tech but keep on pretending you do… “pretentious”
Suck my 6-legged phosphorescent horse cock.
1) PM credits Cameron specifically: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4339457.html
2) Wired featurette has Cameron say “we”: http://www.wired.com/video/latest-videos/latest/1815816633/avatar-mirrors-emotions-with-motion-capture/57975931001
pwned.
Weekend actuals by Boxofficemojo.com: Avatar 75.6M (best 2nd weekend ever), Holmes 62.4M, Alvin2 48.9M
huh? are you really that thick, mutiny? you are doing exactly what i said earlier: thinking you know everything from reading an article/watching a clip on the internet
link one: PM gives cameron credit for the mo-cap? uh, how exactly is that different from 100 other articles on the exact same thing that say the exact same thing? nothing new here
clip two: i can’t play it here, cameron says ‘we’? i’m not sure what this means since i can’t watch the clip, bu how does this refute my contention that you don’t know what you’re talking about?
Leah, you’re arguing just to argue.
I believe Leah’s point is that Popular Mechanics may just be repeating misinformation, just as if you quote wikipedia after it had been hit by a Goon vandal attack.
The problem here is that it does become an issue if Cameron (or his estate) decides to contest the patent – and god knows patent offices are backlogged enough as it is (Blackberry had to go all the way to the US Supreme Court to prevent their network being shutdown by patent infringement claims – they eventually handed over millions of dollars in an out-of-court settlement… only to find out a short time later that the patent office ruled in their favor).
Uncontested claims of ownership are a reasonably Big Deal ™ and you should go poke Matt to do something about it.
I’d like to thank Leah for derailing two threads now into personal squabbles. Cameron’s own personal Joan of Arc.
At this point, I’m willing to pony up cash for Drunk Lex to return.
my original quibble with with an inaccuracy in mutiny’s comment, certainly not in support of cameron. how is that personal, and how is mutiny not part of the equation in the supposed ‘derailment’?
martin s: mind your own beeswax
“At this point, I’m willing to pony up cash for Drunk Lex to return.”
GOOD IDEA.
You know what should be in 3D is that VALENTINE’S DAY movie.
Emma Roberts, Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba, Taylor Swift AND Anne Hathaway? More like VAG-ENTINE’S DAY. 3D with that lineup would rule. On the way in they could give you the stupid glasses AND a Shamwow.
SHAMWOW. BOW.
leahnz, if you discount things like articles and actual interviews with participants, then how can anyone prove anything?
As an Avatar/Cameron booster, why would you fight the idea that Cameron’s ideas about technical innovations were absolutely key to the maikng of this movie? How would that be different from any of his other movies?
“I believe Leah’s point is that Popular Mechanics may just be repeating misinformation…”
sorry, yes, foamy, that was my point. i’m amazed at the broad strokes many internet articles deal in and how rife with inaccuracies/omissions they are, inaccuracies and omissions that are then replicated 100 fold and taken as fact by readers who probably should know better
perm, see above. what on earth makes you think articles on the internet are in depth and accurate, giving credit where credit is due? seriously, do people actually take as gospel all the shit that’s written on the internet? this baffles me
“As an Avatar/Cameron booster, why would you fight the idea that Cameron’s ideas about technical innovations were absolutely key to the maikng of this movie? How would that be different from any of his other movies?”
perm, i honestly i don’t understand what this has to do with my initial comment here, which was an extremely simple one: that the mo-cap tech developed for avatar was not ‘cameron’s development’, rather it was a joint venture between lightstorm and weta d, over which digital has the proprietary rights. i was not ‘fighting’ anything and my comment was re: a comment about the mo-cap now being used for tin tin, not avatar
Having spoken to both Cameron AND WETA about the developments, I don’t think either would call it “Cameron’s development.”
They worked together on how to do Avatar.
Yes. Cameron wanted to use a head rig that videotaped, rather than used dots.
Yes. WETA had developed a rig for King Kong that allowed Serkis’ facial expressions to be read and built on by the computer in a way that didn’t exist when they made Rings.
Yes, Jim wanted to shoot without green or blue screen.
Yes. WETA figured out how to make it work.
This was a collaborative effort, just as WETA – while owned by Peter – worked with Peter to do the things they did for Rings and Kong.
Cameron, from the DP/30 interview…
“From a technical level, I am more like an orchestra conductor. I don’t play all the instruments. And I couldn’t. There are virtuoso performers who you want to be working with. We got the world’s best animators. We got the world’s best designers… and that sort of thing. But i conduct the whole thing to make sure it’s all flowing in the right direction. I have to learn that language. I don’t have to sit there and write code at a work station. But I do need to be able to speak their language. And it took us a while just to get into a groove where they understood what I was saying and I understood their working method. And this is talking about working with WETA… Peter Jackson’s people down there, down in New Zealand.”
“Yes. Cameron wanted to use a head rig that videotaped, rather than used dots.”
And that’s what I was referring to.
Two sides here:
1. You shouldn’t really believe everything on the internet, and if someone involved with the process tells you information is incorrect you should be prepared to re-examine it (although not necessarily switch sides immediately – god knows there are enough self-serving people out there who are hoping that’s your reaction).
2. You can’t really be annoyed at someone for believing information they read on the internet is true, especially when they’ve read a ton of corroborating evidence. Saying “It’s wrong, I know the real story” isn’t exactly the strongest argument in the world.
If Weta D want people to know that they hold the proprietary rights for the various mo-cap tech then they should do something about it. There are issues with public statements and tacit acknowledgements that have precedents in IP disputes – companies much larger than Weta have been taken to the cleaners because they relied on “common sense” rather than legal advice.
And from the DP/30 with WETA’s Joe Letteri…
“Right as we
All I’m sayin’…
LOL
no, mutiny, you actually said, and i quote, THE MO-CAP IS “CAMERON’S DEVELOPMENT”, to which i disagreed. and then you accused me of splitting hairs over digital’s involvement, when digital’s expertise was crucial and inextricable to the realisation of the new tech, which is a fact not up for debate.
and then you kept changing your story with each passing comment, providing a link to ‘popular mechanics’ saying they gave cameron credit for the tech (as if this means squat diddly) so it must be true (?!) in order to make it seem like i don’t know what i’m on about and refute my assertion that the tech is as much weta as cameron, and then don lewis chimed in with an ignoramus ‘pwned’.
your arrogance is a thing to behold, i’ll give you that
Leah, you’re a single-minded zealot.
Reread me. I said Cameron developed it, also referring to Fusion. Do you think I’m saying he built the damn things himself?
What I was referring to regarding mo-cap was the camera rig. After you started attacking me, I elaborated that it was his idea and that WETA built it, and the deal was that they own it. And everything about Dave’s transcript backs up what I said — it was Cameron’s idea to do it that way. You just don’t like that I initially credited Cameron without mentioning WETA. Get over it.
So, yes, you are splitting hairs and trying to make an argument where there is none. You’ve been a troll on THB all day.
David Poland said: “Not disingenuous about 6 or 7, Ethan… just a victim of Box Office Mojo sloppiness. Seriously… why would I care about one more?
As far as other details… it’s a bit silly to yank The Final Destination out as horror. It was a horrible year for horror… everywhere”
First off DP, I meant that you using domestic grosses when you almost always use worldwide grosses is somewhat disingenous. I really could care less if this is a good year for horror or not. It’s irrelevant and more than a bit silly compared to the numbers. “Final Destination 4” is the highest grossing horror film worldwide since “The Grudge” in 2004 (unless you count I Am Legend). It is the top grossing R-Rated horror film since “Hannibal.”
Im surprised you chose to overlook that.
What are we proving with My Bloody Valentine? When’s the last time a hard-R horror film other than Saw grossed that number worldwide?
On the other hand, good call on “Chicken Run.” So the top 2 stop-motion pics are 3D…
“It’s a fad that cycles in and out of favor every decade or so.”
Is there any cycle in which 3D made up even 5% of domestic box office in a year??? How about 13-14%?
Two of the top grossing pictures in 1939 were color, yet major features were released in Black & White almost 30 years later.
When 3D looks good and is technically not much more difficult to produce, it will eventually take over the marketplace.
I don’t know…going to a 3D movie may be fun as something different, but I couldn’t imagine sitting through every movie wearing those dumbass glasses.
“Having spoken to both Cameron AND WETA about the developments, I don’t think either would call it “Cameron’s development.”
— DP
“Reread me. I said Cameron developed it, also referring to Fusion. Do you think I’m saying he built the damn things himself?”
good lord, are you thick as a post? cameron did not ‘develop’ the mo-cap; strictly speaking, weta developed it with cameron’s input. what part of this don’t you understand? do you not know what ‘develop’ means?
“Leah, you’re a single-minded zealot”
well, better a single minded zealot who actually knows what i’m talking about than a pretentious, annoying little fucker who THINKS he knows everything because he read it on the internet, tries to make films and mistakes his own opinion for fact
(and the only person i’ve come gunning for today is you, mutiny, because to be honest it’s rather amusing)
Leah, the only amusing thing has been watching you flailing about, embarrassing yourself like a drunk all day on this site.
hey, at least i’m amusing! jeff with his sandpaper-dry humour is more amusing than you any day of the week, you’re about as fun as a spike thru the eye
(and don’t kid yourself, when it comes to the shit i know, i know it; if anyone has embarrassed himself today not knowing that weta developed the mo-cap tech for avatar it’s you, posting a link to a ‘popular mechanics’ article to back yourself up. way to go, mutiny!)
Perm: “…going to a 3D movie may be fun as something different, but I couldn’t imagine sitting through every movie wearing those dumbass glasses.” Credit where due, EXACTLY.
And just as a general ongoing complaint, for me at least, about 3D: It’s so inherently distracting, such a gimmick, even when well used, it curiously keeps me from entirely engaging with the movie and enjoying it.
I’m so focused on the weird visual plane and distorted perspective, little dialogue bits tend to SAIL over my head like the Concorde.
Had occasion to see AVATAR twice, once in 3D, once in 2D. That first viewing, I was so focused on the stupid glasses and the cool shot of Jake coming out of cryo, noting the effect but also noting things looked a little too dark — SO focused on the visual, I missed half his narration about his brother, and then spent the NEXT TWENTY MINUTES thinking I’d missed some important plot detail about how, when or why the brother died, how they scooped up Jake, how he was injured, etc.
I’ll fully admit it’s THE best 3D I’ve ever seen, you eventually get into the film, BUT *to me* it’s always a little bit of a distraction, and despite what its champions say, it’s hard to immerse onself in the dialogue, plot particulars and narrative when half the exposition is dropped and you’re focusing on some distorted perspective.
I also do sort of think (mutiny might’ve suggested it) its megafans talking it up for Picture really OUGHT to also check it out in 2D; Curiously I might’ve enjoyed just WATCHING it more that way, as I could immerse with the narrative better… but some of the heretofore mentioned flaws are also a little more apparent in 2D, when you have more time to focus on the clunkier elements instead of a nonstop parade of spectacle.
I still think it’s a very good movie, but as for 3D? That’s twice this year I felt curiously ripped off by it; I saw My Bloody Valentine (which, unlike Avatar, gave me a TWO-DAY MIGRAINE and nausea) and even though, yeah, it’s just a dumpy slasher movie, ten minutes after it ended I felt like I didn’t really see a “movie” and probably couldn’t have passed a quiz on its plot, such as it was. My first impulse then as now was I should’ve just seen it in 2D.
From here out, anything that’s offered in 2D AND 3D? I’d choose the 2D every time, sorry.
lex, i don’t think you need to apologise, 3-D just isn’t suited to every brain and i don’t mean that in a ‘you’re stupid’ kind of way but quite literally, studies have shown that about 6% of people can not process 3-D without some kind of issue ranging from mild distraction thru to full-blown disorientation, nausea and blowing chunks, it’s just physiology. you’re obviously one of those people, and the reason that 3-D will never be a ‘be-all-and-end-all-perfect-for-every-movie’ concept or solution for the future
But Leah, I was right…
Maybe you didn’t read Dave’s Joe quote, but it confirms exactly what I said — that the camera rig was Cameron’s idea. How does that then discount him from being credited with developing it? Because WETA actually built it? I never claimed they didn’t.
You’ve been arguing something that seems based on picking and choosing what you want to read here.
Lex – I’m only paying for Drunk Lex. Not comprehendable, critic Lex.
Leah/Mutiny – What Dave’s quotes show is if not for Cameron, Weta had no intention going down that path since they were fine with the Kong/LOTR method and Cameron had no applicable approach to what he wanted. Usually, Cameron has a more rounded idea but that’s mostly in regards to cameras, which the WETA guy seems to have confirmed.
Look at the Predator design. He and Winston were in flight for Aliens. Winston had just gotten the gig and was toying with ideas when Cameron brought up dreadlocks and mandibles. IIRC, he even did a rough sketch on the flight. Winston combined that with his approach and then built it. Without Cameron, no design. Without Winston, no application. So while Winston gets full credit since he had to make it functional, the idea was isolated and not applicable to other movies. With Avatar, the mo-cap will be used on other projects which is most likely why Cameron makes sure he gets credit on the IP. IIRC, he did a similar thing with NASA.
And Leah, it’s a public blog. I’ll mind my beeswax when you sober up.
Leah is aware that ‘Popular Mechanics,’ and ‘Wired’ are print magazines, right? Not just “internet articles.”
I read this blog everyday, but rarely comment. But Martin S is right, give me drunk Lex any day of the week. She’s insufferable.
well, unfortunately i was stone cold sober, martin s, but in a terrific mood for pretentious tossers with sticks so far up their butts they think they know everything about everything when in fact they are just blowing smoke out their ass (what leaks out around the stick anyway) 90% of the time!
and ftr, you are incorrect as well:
“Weta had no intention going down that path since they were fine with the Kong/LOTR method”
nope, you don’t know what you’re talking about. there was absolutely no facial capture used for gollum in LOTR, the tech hadn’t been developed yet, gollum’s facial expressions/musculature was entirely key frame animated.
weta d innovated like they always do and developed the unique facial capture tech using myriad reference dots specifically for andy’s performance-capture as kong, and the facial capture rig developed by weta for cameron on avatar is a simple extension of the same tech, enabling the same facial capture but in real-time.
no, mutiny, your INITIAL statement was wrong and DP even corrected you. just like you were wrong when you insisted nobody could have heard of ‘harvey’ because you hadn’t.
“Leah is aware that ‘Popular Mechanics,’ and ‘Wired’ are print magazines, right? Not just “internet articles.”
yeah, no shit sherlock, leah is perfectly aware of that. my point – if you actually read what i wrote – is quite clear: that mutiny has no actual knowledge of anything re: the facial capture for avatar, he simply reads articles ON THE INTERNET (because that’s where we are, on the internet) and then thinks he knows what he’s talking about, and laughably links to a PM article (again, on the internet, because that’s where we are) to ‘prove’ his point, and in doing so ironically proves his ignorance in the process by confirming that that he doesn’t actually know anything but because he reads articles ON THE INTERNET, he thinks he does.
and you think i’m insufferable, i could not give less of a shit i’m sure you’re not alone, but at least have the guts to say it to my face rather than refer to me in the third person like a snarky-ass little weenie
The real issue of Avatar and the success of it is not whether or not it will lead to all 3-D movies; the question is whether or not it will lead to Cameron’s oft stated view that higher priced movies should lead to higher priced tickets. Should movie prices be tiered?
It could. That is not a good thing.
Much in the same way when DVD’s first were popular the studios loaded many releases with extras but eventually pulled back and now charge more for the extras or special editions, this is the road we will perhaps go down in theatrical.
I think in the short run studios will release more 3-D films both shot for 3-D or merely transferred to 3-D. They will benefit from higher ticket prices much like Avatar has and they will reap the rewards. Eventually, they will resent the extra cost of 3-D ( or realize it is just a novelty) and then still want to keep the ticket price high. Then you will see tiered pricing.
Woody Allen costs 12.50, Avatar 7 costs 25.75…but not in 3-D.
Cameron has said many times this is how he thinks industry should be structured and I see very few people questioning him on this.
Would you pay 15 dollars for 2-D Avatar? I have only seen it in 3-D and while it is a great visual experience, I suspect once it hits DVD, the reality will dawn on many it is not very good as a story. With its lack of metaphor and allegory it will age very poorly. Star Wars ages brilliantly because it is not specific.
Nevertheless, that is the road the current 3-D phase has sent us on. 3-D is not new. It is and always will be a fad. Film companies and producers such as Cameron are always looking for a way to make a higher profit.
Leah – If you haven’t been drinking, you should think about it.
nope, you don’t know what you’re talking about. there was absolutely no facial capture used for gollum in LOTR, the tech hadn’t been developed yet, gollum’s facial expressions/musculature was entirely key frame animated.
weta d innovated like they always do and developed the unique facial capture tech using myriad reference dots specifically for andy’s performance-capture as kong, and the facial capture rig developed by weta for cameron on avatar is a simple extension of the same tech, enabling the same facial capture but in real-time.
Ohmygod…whether they came up with the dot method on Kong or LOTR is beside the point. Go back and re-read what Poland posted – the WETA people were not considering Cameron’s idea, nor doing any R&D on it before he came to them with it. In fact, the guy admitting to passing on first approach! Without Cameron, they never would have conceived of this method. It was his idea. Just like some of the Camera innovations he’s done with NASA, (his brother is at NASA, IIRC).
Nicol – Re: Cameron’s idea for theatrical. That’s exactly right. The guy has done a total 180 from what he used to espouse in the 80’s. He believes in concentrating the most production funds in the fewest hands. Beyond being as elitist as it gets, it’s a disaster model for studios to follow.
Leah, in another thread you talked about the effects of 3D on a percentage of moviegoers. How do you know this? Did you conduct the studies? You better not have read it on the internet because according to you that immediately dismisses them of having any relevance at all. I might even say: you don’t know what your talking about, your favorite phrase. According to you, we can’t believe what the people who were actually involved said in interviews. Only Leah from new zealand actually knows the truth. I knew exactly what mutiny meant, but you took it out of context to pick a fight, something you like to do a lot around here. You argue like a 13 year old brat.
Martin S,
Yes, the Cameron model of charging more for higher price movies would not only be disastrous for studios but especially for indie films and low budget films.
I am sure people who agree with Cameron would spin it to mean that more people would see low budget films because they are cheaper. We know that would not be the case. Fewer would get greenlit. Also, who would set the parameter on where the price tier changes? 100 million budget, 200 hundred?
You would also get producers trying to inflate the budget so that they could be considered competitors in the higher tier.
A disaster all around. Again…that is Cameron’s ultimate goal and he is not shy about it. Yet I have yet to hear anyone seriously consider the implications of it.
maybe YOU should drink, martin s, it might loosen you up and perhaps make you a bit less full of yourself.
please point out where i EVER said that the head rig was NOT cameron’s idea.
what i said, before DP ever posted, was that the mo-cap tech was a joint venture between lightstorm and digital, and digital holds the proprietary rights, in response to mutiny’s claim that the mo-cap for avatar was ‘cameron’s development’. this statement is simply incorrect, and it’s still incorrect no matter how you slice it. my statement was a simple one, and entirely accurate.
mutiny has proven time and time again that he can never be corrected or admit to being wrong (see the harvey thread, christ on a cracker, absolute lunacy) and apparently neither can you.
i don’t need to re-read what DP posted, i know exactly how the head rig evolved because i often work next door to the people who developed it while it was happening. so, who knows what they’re talking about? me, with personal knowledge of how the tech was develpoed, or you who… reads stuff on the internet and thinks you know everything?
“Weta had no intention going down that path since they were fine with the Kong/LOTR method and Cameron had no applicable approach to what he wanted”
no. the fact is, weta d had innovated the facial capture for kong, when you claim “they had no intention of going down that path”; well, to be accurate they had no time to intend anything or start down any path re: further facial capture innovation because the moment kong wrapped it was all go for avatar and r&d on the facial capture, which cameron wanted to happen in real time. from the existing tech developed for kong came the head rig based on the exact same myriad dot tech used for kong, but switched up so that rather than on the skin the dots are projected from the rig onto the face for real-time capture during perfs rather than solely post p.
having the IDEA for something is not the same as DEVELOPING it; weta DEVOLPED the tech for the rig with input from cameron; it was a joint venture, which is EXACTLY what i’ve said all along. if you and mutiny can’t understand the difference between having the idea for something and actually DEVELOPING the tech for it, then i don’t know what to tell you. do you think cameron said, ‘i want a head rig!’ and weta just built it then and there on the spot? no, it was a process; this process is called ‘research and development’. and now, the end result belongs to digital.
monco: i was told the 6% stat while a group of us was on an avatar set visit to have a look at the pace fusion camera in action
(i guess the old adage ‘don’t believe everything you read’ doesn’t go down well around here)
“According to you, we can’t believe what the people who were actually involved said in interviews.”
are you referring to cameron? he hasn’t been particularly vocal about weta’s involvement in the mo-cap (not surprisingly), but does mention it in the excerpt DP provided from the cameron DP/30 – a bit of it below (i don’t think i watched that particular interview, it might have been the first one i couldn’t get it to download properly)
“And it took us a while just to get into a groove where they understood what I was saying and I understood their working method. And this is talking about working with WETA… Peter Jackson’s people down there, down in New Zealand.”
I’d be in favor of movies directed by Michael Bay or Stephen Sommers costing 3x the ticket prices for other stuff, regardless of their costs.
Leah – to be accurate they had no time to intend anything or start down any path re: further facial capture innovation because the moment kong wrapped it was all go for avatar and r&d on the facial capture, which cameron wanted to happen in real time. from the existing tech developed for kong came the head rig based on the exact same myriad dot tech used for kong, but switched up so that rather than on the skin the dots are projected from the rig onto the face for real-time capture during perfs rather than solely post
OK. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that statement reads as if you do not see the new tech created for Avatar as a progression of mo-cap since it did not change the dot method. If I’m reading that right, than that’s the disconnect. Your making a distinction between a new form of mo-cap and a new method of using mo-cap.
having the IDEA for something is not the same as DEVELOPING it; weta DEVOLPED the tech for the rig with input from cameron; it was a joint venture, which is EXACTLY what i’ve said all along. if you and mutiny can’t understand the difference between having the idea for something and actually DEVELOPING the tech for it, then i don’t know what to tell you. do you think cameron said, ‘i want a head rig!’ and weta just built it then and there on the spot? no, it was a process; this process is called ‘research and development’. and now, the end result belongs to digital.
I have very good understanding as to how Cameron works. When it comes to camera innovations he knows precisely what he wants. The difference is that for you it’s “without WETA, Cameron would have nothing” and for me it’s “without Cameron, WETA had no intention of traveling this path”. If they did, they wouldn’t have had to do an R&D crash course for his arrival. So in cases like this, the idea is paramount. It’s called intellectual property. I have no idea if he signed it over to WETA, who at best, would co-own a patent. But they way this shakes out is if not for Cameron, WETA has no idea to start out with. That gives him proprietary rights. If I had to guess, it probably breaks down with Cameron getting royalties off of whatever final system is developed because the only other way WETA gets everything is if they worked it out of Avatar’s numbers.
From what I can see, the ‘innovation’ that is at the heart of this trolling war is non-existent.
The facial mocap system used a head-mounted camera pointed at the actor’s face, recording footage of marker positions to be synced with the body mocap. Big Whoop.
This tech was eval’d at Weta in 1998 for LOTR, and was generally available for at least two years prior to that time. It also provided a lores realtime solve for the director to see. After 10 years, the quality of the tracking alorithims will have improved, but the idea and technology can in no way be considered ‘innovative’. Cameron claiming that anyone on the production ‘came up with the idea’ is just more hubis and hype.
Leahnz’s belief that “the dots are projected from the rig onto the face for real-time capture” is absolute nonsense. 🙂 Just think about it for a minute. If they’re projected from the rig onto the face, they wouldn’t move at all when the actor started performing. They’re clearly inked on, as they would have to be to move when the skin does.
Less petulant ranting from everyone who wants to be considered ‘insider’ and more common sense please. A little bit of reaearch into the history of CGI tech over the last 20 years wouldn’t go amiss either.
“This tech was eval’d at Weta in 1998 for LOTR”
no, the facial capture tech wasn’t ready for LOTR, the body mo-cap programmes were too rudimentary for facial capture and the far more subtle and detailed facial performance capture was only developed to a usable standard for kong. and sorry, oldguy, but i know the guys who did the mo-cap for LOTR and kong, so i don’t need to ‘research’ it
“Leahnz’s belief that “the dots are projected from the rig onto the face for real-time capture” is absolute nonsense. 🙂 Just think about it for a minute. If they’re projected from the rig onto the face, they wouldn’t move at all when the actor started performing. They’re clearly inked on, as they would have to be to move when the skin does.”
yeah, that’s right, i hadn’t re-read that till now but i royally mucked up my description there, what i meant was that the dots are read by projection from the rig for real-time capture, not projected onto the face, that obviously makes no sense. proof reading on my part wouldn’t go astray, my bad in a big way
as for the rest it, what you’ve said is no different from what i said, that the head rig used on avatar is just a real-time extension of kong’s facial capture tech, not something radically new
“This tech was eval’d at Weta in 1998 for LOTR, and was generally available for at least two years prior to that time.”
sorry, that’s the quote i meant to cut and paste at the beginning of my post, i shortchanged it a bit
also, just re-reading what oldguy wrote,
“It also provided a lores realtime solve for the director to see. After 10 years, the quality of the tracking alorithims will have improved, but the idea and technology can in no way be considered ‘innovative'”
if i’m understanding that comment, that’s not entirely accurate because the facial capture on kong was not achieved for real time performance, andy’s mo-cap performance as kong the giant gorilla was inserted and rendered in post-production. the difference for avatar and what does makes it a leap in innovation is that the performances were shot and motion captured in real time so that an actual rough render of the characters was visible in camera so that cameron could critique the actual performances as they were shot, much more like a conventional live action shoot, they were not just inserted in post-production like the character of kong was, there actually is quite a big difference between the two production techniques.
Cool. glad we agree. Please excuse my pissy attitude in the same way you excused my typos 🙂 The system I referred to was evaluated for LOTR, and we discarded it as being too lores for film use at the time. Sounds like the tech had matured to a usable standard by Kong.
I also agree with you that mutinyco seems to be basing his comments on articles rather than actual experience.
Anyone – including Cameron and Jackson – can glibly say “I want to do this”. And then it’s about 3 years of talented sweat by other people before it’s a working pipeline. They do tend to end up with the credit tho. Better PR.
Well, considering I live in NY and not NZ, and we spell it ‘programs’ not ‘programmes’, yeah, I’d think that what I said was based on reading and not first-hand. However, there’s nothing I said that was fundamentally incorrect. Leah was just upset that my initial parenthetical credited Cameron without mentioning WETA.
i didn’t think you were being particularly pissy oldguy, so no worries there. as for everything else: spot on. you obviously know what you’re on about
This has been bothering me. Perhaps somebody can help with this. But why do the Na’vi have tails? I can’t think of a biological function for them. The tails aren’t used for balance, I wouldn’t think, since they walk perfectly upright. Nor do they use them to grasp branches, at least I don’t recall that. Do they use them to swat flies from their asses?… Generally speaking, unless it’s fish using their tails for propulsion, those are the reasons tails exist…
Humans don’t have much use for pinky toes, but we still have them.
Yeah, but I’m sure you put your man nipples to good use…