Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

#61

Post by jamesbritt »

anigbrowl wrote: post #34

Although 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…

BTW, if the discussion of the use of different camera angles and focus interests you, grab a copy of Citizen Kane with the commentaries by Roger Ebert and Peter Bogdanovich. There's tons of stuff going on in that film that, once pointed out, are simply amazing, and Ebert does a great job of explaining things.

http://www.amazon.com/Citizen-Two-Disc-Special-Orson-Welles/...

Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

#62

Post by ryanwaggoner »

anigbrowl wrote: post #34

Although 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…

I've been active on HN for more than a year but it still makes me smile when I see that someone has sat down and pounded out a comment like this that is so informative and well-crafted. An upvote for you, good sir (or ma'am).

Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

#63

Post by jonny_noog »

anigbrowl wrote: post #60
jonny_noog wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great to read such an in depth analysis. I had read about Cameron's integration of CGI with live action at production time, but had not found anything that explains this different kind of 3D as well as you just did. I've had this hunch for a while that there are show biz executives out there hoping against hope that Cameron's new 3D technology - which as you say can only be fully appreciated in the cinema - will magi…

I'm fairly confident about this...partly as a fan of Cameron, but also because story/plot, although fundamentally important, need not be so complex or original to be good. As a quick tongue-in-cheek guide to previous work of his: The Terminator : Robot from the future menaces woman from the present to protect own existence, future career as CA governor. Aliens : return to th planet of the Aliens. Even with bigger gun…

Don't forget the implied Dances With Wolves style, "some humans see the error of their ways and go native." :P

But you're right, it doesn't need to be overly complex or totally original to be good. There's always room for a well told story, some of the best stories of modern times are retellings of archetypal themes.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of most of Cameron's work, the Terminator mythology (I even still have the old Terminator comics published by Dark Horse) and Aliens (also have the Dark Horse comics) probably more so than anything else. But at the very least, there better be some originality to the writing, even if still within the overall framework of his easily summarised story.

Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

#64

Post by anamax »

henrikschroder wrote: post #58
anamax wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that 3D will be significant. I don't. We'll know soon enough.

It's highly interesting for the entire movie industry, because it's an experience you currently have to go to the cinemas to get, you can't get it from buying some cheap consumer electronics and downloading something off the internet. If Cameron has made something that makes 3D integral to the cinema experience instead of just something that feels tacked-on and not necessary, that can definitely change cinema forever…

3D may revolutionize cinema, but if it does, I'll bet that it comes to the home as well.

BluRay has been out for a while. It's time for another format....

Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

#65

Post by mcantor »

anigbrowl wrote: post #60
jonny_noog wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great to read such an in depth analysis. I had read about Cameron's integration of CGI with live action at production time, but had not found anything that explains this different kind of 3D as well as you just did. I've had this hunch for a while that there are show biz executives out there hoping against hope that Cameron's new 3D technology - which as you say can only be fully appreciated in the cinema - will magi…

I'm fairly confident about this...partly as a fan of Cameron, but also because story/plot, although fundamentally important, need not be so complex or original to be good. As a quick tongue-in-cheek guide to previous work of his: The Terminator : Robot from the future menaces woman from the present to protect own existence, future career as CA governor. Aliens : return to th planet of the Aliens. Even with bigger gun…

Maybe the potential for a simple synopsis is an indicator of a potentially excellent work, rather than the opposite. Who knew "Little fellow must dip a ring in lava to defeat an evil overlord" could last for three books?

Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

#66

Post by mcantor »

vaporstun wrote: post #25

Damn, nobody liked it when I submitted the exact same link with the exact same title 2 days ago. :( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=991197 Oh well. Still glad to see that people get to read it. I was especially impressed by push in technology that Cameron has made. I had no idea he was behind a lot of the push to get 3D projectors installed in theaters and how much he did to influence the creation of the 3D camer…

I wonder if it has to do with when you posted it during the day?

Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

#67

Post by mtalantikite »

anigbrowl wrote: post #52
mtalantikite wrote: post #36

I don't know, not to be nit-picky, but how am I supposed to believe a future human society can fly special forces to a far away planet and mind-control a genetically modified species, but still can't get a paralyzed dude to walk again on the cheap? Maybe health care just sucks that bad in the future?

That's like asking why the people in Star Wars speak English :) Although this obvious plot query is nominally handled in the film, the real reason is that Cameron is using his epic canvas to present an exciting metaphor for how he sees the world, hence the object of desire (over which the conflicts take place) being dubbed 'unobtainium'.

Well, yes and no :) Characters aren't motivated in Star Wars to defeat the Empire so that they can be rewarded with the ability to speak English again, but one of the major motivating factors of this story is giving the protagonist the ability to walk again if accepts and succeeds in his task.

I don't really know anything about the plot, but it seems like I should be expecting a plot turn where the protagonist is faced with the dilemma of turning on his peers and his mission for love's sake, or doing something morally suspect so he can walk again. Just a guess, I really know nothing about the movie.

Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

#68

Post by roc »

grellas wrote: post #40
roc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your basic points are good ones with which I don't disagree (the studio system did turn out a lot of junk and classic story-telling does stand in a class by itself). Insofar as I implied otherwise in favor of what might have come across as a nostalgic view of the past, I stand corrected. If I were to rephrase my basic point, I would say that (in my view) technology, however good, is less important to good film-making…

"technology, however good, is less important to good film-making than are other creative elements such as good story-telling"

Yes, well, I agree with that part. 110%. Possibly more.

Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

#69

Post by roc »

cchooper wrote: post #49
roc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ph…

I guess it depends on who you're talking to. I still keep hearing 'movies used to be better'.

And I never argued that quality was constant. I believe it's essentially random. So the existence of an aberrant concentration of quality isn't surprising to me. I'm sure you could find clusters of a few years where nothing of note came out as well.

Re: James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever

#70

Post by NikkiA »

cchooper wrote: post #49
roc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ph…

IMDB reports that 2322 movies were released in 1939 alone, is it really surprising that there were a handful of good movies among them?

1980 for comparision, IMDB lists 6007 movies (8000+ if you include TV movies), and contains modern (popular) classics such as Stir Crazy, Superman II, Empire Strikes Back, Airplane!, The Blue Lagoon, Ordinary People, Urban Cowboy. The Shining, Caddyshack, Raging Bull, Friday The 13th, The Fog, The Blues Brothers.

Hmm, looks like 1980 was a much more 'classic' era than the 40s for hollywood, but you wouldn't have heard that from film buffs in the 80s.

Hollywood has always been a great abuser of the 'sling lots of shit at the wall and see what sticks' approach to 'greatness', they're just slinging a lot more shit these days.

Even if we take a really contemporary year and do the same study, we see a pattern of greats no matter what year, take 2005 at random:

Batman Begins, Sin City, V for Vendetta, Revenge of the Sith, King Kong, Brokeback Mountain, Harry Potter/Goblet of Fire, Serenity, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Mr & Mrs Smith, Wedding Crashers, Munich, Saw 2, Hostel, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Madagascar, Pride & Prejudice, Land of the Dead.

Ah, but the movie buff will point out that they're not established classics like Gone with the Wind, or Wizard of Oz. Not yet, anyway.

Edit: Btw, for 2005, the number of movies was 28,000+. Is it any wonder that there is a lot of formulaic stuff in there as well?

Post reply on HN