The most fascinating part of this whole thing to me is having the chance to see the movie after having read the 'scriptment' over 5 years ago. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/8/73755/86297 provided the link, though I'm not finding the document online any longer. (BTW, the link is worth visiting for a few other interesting scripts--for instance, a version of "I Am Legend". http://www.horrorlair.com/moviescripts_a…
James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever
41–50 of 71 posts
Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever
#42The technology associated with film-making has evolved incrementally ever since its inception: from the 1890's Edison Kinetoscope shorts that could be watched by only one person at a time to the 2-reeler comedy shorts circa 1915 to D.W. Griffith's breakthrough with silent feature-length films in Birth of a Nation to the first talkies with 1927's The Jazz Singer to the introduction of color in select 1920's movies suc…
What? You did not just diss comics. Big dumb blockbusters have a quality of their own. Big budgets & mass appeal can easily seem to demand a bland inoffensiveness, but so don't watch them if you're in the mood for a smarter movie. There are still a few out there. And calling out for a time when films were Quality just strikes me as convenient nostalgia, ignoring past crap.
GP didn't dis comics, he's dissing filmmakers who can't tell the difference between a comic and a movie.
Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever
#43Maybe it's just me, but these blue dudes are not quite out of the uncanny valley.
I agree. Those characters make me feel like this movie is a Sci-Fi Channel Original.
Definitely excited to see the new film techniques though.
Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever
#44I don't see why this "Could change film forever". This is just an advert for a movie.
This (long) New Yorker profile of Cameron might be more interesting to some Hacker News readers. It focuses less on the tech, and more on Cameron's personality and career: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_... It paints him as a sort of Steve Jobs figure, with a really incredible drive to create and succeed, often at the expense of all else. > She wanted to get married, but Cameron, she says…
good article, worth reading just for this quote by bill paxton:
“The words ‘No’ and ‘That’s impossible’ and phrases like ‘That can’t be done’—that’s the stuff that gives him an erection"
Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever
#45Although the article mentions the topic, it has such a broad sweep that it obscures the real takeaway, which is the way that 3d is employed. All the stuff about the incredibly detailed CG, backstory etc. is valid and interesting, but epic levels of such are not really new - Star Wars has a very detailed alternative universe, and any Tolkien nerd above a certain age can remember the vast level of supplementary data on…
Are you working on this film, or in the industry?
Industry. I wish I worked for James Cameron!
EDIT: here are the articles I had wanted to include earlier. Variety interview with Cameron is light on technical detail but addresses other filmmaking concerns (like how it affects the editing process): http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=...
And this white paper from Autodesk (who supply software tools for this, and who are a primary tech vendor for Avatar): http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/stereoscopic_whitepape...
Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever
#46Although the article mentions the topic, it has such a broad sweep that it obscures the real takeaway, which is the way that 3d is employed. All the stuff about the incredibly detailed CG, backstory etc. is valid and interesting, but epic levels of such are not really new - Star Wars has a very detailed alternative universe, and any Tolkien nerd above a certain age can remember the vast level of supplementary data on…
That's a great explanation, and now I'm very intrigued by this movie, but I only want to know one thing: can I comfortably wear the 3D glasses over my regular glasses? I don't have contacts, and I need glasses to see the screen properly.
This is a big concern for me.
Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever
#47As a sign of his commitment, Cameron agreed to give up his entire directing fee and any profit participation in the movie. He showed his commitment by giving up a financial stake? It would have shown more commitment if he'd given up any flat fee in order to get a higher percentage of the profits.
I think the idea was to show that he's in it for the art, not for the money.
Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever
#48Although the article mentions the topic, it has such a broad sweep that it obscures the real takeaway, which is the way that 3d is employed. All the stuff about the incredibly detailed CG, backstory etc. is valid and interesting, but epic levels of such are not really new - Star Wars has a very detailed alternative universe, and any Tolkien nerd above a certain age can remember the vast level of supplementary data on…
That's a great explanation, and now I'm very intrigued by this movie, but I only want to know one thing: can I comfortably wear the 3D glasses over my regular glasses? I don't have contacts, and I need glasses to see the screen properly. This is a big concern for me.
Yes. I wear glasses too but the 'RealD' glasses handed out at most modern theaters remain comfortable for the whole film, I find. I gather there are some limitations, eg people with truly severe astigmatism, but mine is pretty bad and it hasn't been a problem.
Not to swamp the whole thread with my own links, but the projection technology is damn near as interesting as the acquisition technology. I got a far better grounding in the physics of both light and sound from working in this field than I ever did in school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema
Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever
#49The technology associated with film-making has evolved incrementally ever since its inception: from the 1890's Edison Kinetoscope shorts that could be watched by only one person at a time to the 2-reeler comedy shorts circa 1915 to D.W. Griffith's breakthrough with silent feature-length films in Birth of a Nation to the first talkies with 1927's The Jazz Singer to the introduction of color in select 1920's movies suc…
I don't buy the argument that the past had a higher rate of quality scripts. To me, that position has always smacked of selective reporting combined with the old 'back in my day' argument. The undeniably great stories of western civilization total a hundred or so works over the course of our history. So the works of any given decade or generation will always be found wanting in that comparison. It shows nothing. If a…
These days, the commonly accepted wisdom is that movies were always as bad as they are now, and anyone who says otherwise is just idealizing the past. I offer the following evidence that the quality of movies is not constant over time:
1939: Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Gone With The Wind, The Wizard Of Oz, Stagecoach, Ninotchka, Wuthering Heights
1940: Rebecca, Fantasia, His Girl Friday, The Grapes of Wrath, The Philadelphia Story, The Great Dictator
1941: Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, The Lady Eve, Sullivan's Travels
Rather than relying on personal taste, I took these from various 'top 100' lists. I haven't seen all of them myself, but the ones I have seen are a mile apart from anything released this year, or any recent year.
Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blue dudes are very human-like, yet are not humans. Therefore, even if you saw them in real life, they would be in the "uncanny valley." The real uncanny valley only applies to attempted depictions of humans. Heck, a shorn chimpanzee is practically in the same uncanny valley as the blue dudes.
* The real uncanny valley only applies to attempted depictions of humans.* In my experience the same reaction, though sometimes muted, applies to just about any living thing Hollywood attempts to computer generate. I can't remember having ever seen a convincing depiction of a dog, cat, or even insect for that matter. It's entirely possible that an alien humanoid biological creature would appear to be obviously living…
The uncanny valley can be used to good effect though: zombies for instance. It's very hard to make a zombie scary if you've got it too low on the uncanny valley that people can't get past going "aww it's so cute!"
I haven't got the creepy feeling I have from other attempts, so I'd likely put them on the upward exponential out of the uncanny valley. I believe this may be greatly helped by the fact they're not supposed to look human.
It's like the aliens in the new Star Trek, the absolute weirdest was the comedic throwback of the green chick. The lack of prosthetics to modify her made her feel so much weirder than any of the others.
The fact that people are going to be going into the movie seeing spaceships and humans rendered in CGI before they see any of the aliens may help the aliens out of the uncanny valley. After wading through Disney Land and finding one of the humanoid robots they don't appear as false as the highly realistic androids being made in Japan despite not being of as good craftsmanship, why? Well I just walked through a mile of talking humanoid mice, anything remotely human is now believable!
However something to point out: Capgras syndrome gives the sufferer this 'uncanny valley' effect to anyone the person knows, they'll believe the person has been replaced by a duplicate.