james cameron - Gizmodo

posts about #jamescameron more →
Avatar: The Result of a Quest for the Holy Grail of Cameras
Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
Panasonic on Global Avatar Promotional Rampage With Army of Huge 3D Plasmas
Mecha Bot from James Cameron's Upcoming Avatar Makes Appearance at E3 Expo

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

lolbrbnvm
11/24/09

In reply to Avatar: The Result of a Quest for the Holy Grail of Cameras
Attention gear snob commenters: Just because James Cameron uses a Behringer mixer to watch dailies (where sound quality doesn't matter because it's not going in the final mix) doesn't lessen the fact that he is richer, more important, and overall better than you. Pointing out gear and giving a canned opinion on it with no facts to back it up is premiere douchebaggery, and I bet your friends all find it really annoying when you do it in person.
Reply

bucho54 promoted this comment lolbrbnvm was starred lolbrbnvm was unstarred

Rift
11/24/09

In reply to Avatar: The Result of a Quest for the Holy Grail of Cameras
I'm surprised at the surprise (unless it's sarcasm I'm not catching). The guy has been innovating film-making for decades. Whether Terminator, Aliens, the Abyss, or Titanic, he has more often than not brought something new to the director's arsenal with each of his offerings.
Reply

Rift was starred Rift was unstarred

MacJedi
11/24/09

In reply to Avatar: The Result of a Quest for the Holy Grail of Cameras
Someone explain to me why the camera is so important when the majority of the movie appears to be CG?
Reply

Twisk promoted this comment MacJedi was starred MacJedi was unstarred

Twisk
11/24/09

@MacJedi: I may not explain this correctly (someone help me out here if my explanation is a bit off)...

There is a real-world camera and also a virtual camera. Both record what your eyes see (there's a lens which approximates each of your eyes). ...so when we see this film in 3D, it's going to be far more "real" looking the way the 3D comes across than we've ever seen in a 3D movie before.
Reply

Twisk was starred Twisk was unstarred

CommentingpointlesslyisMeh
11/24/09

@Twisk: So the 3-D is more "real" 3-D than 3-D was before? That explains it :-P
Reply

Twisk promoted this comment

Twisk
11/24/09

@CommentingpointlesslyisMeh: Damn, there was an amazing article on this a few weeks ago.

The article was talking about the depth that you would see in a normal 3D film of today vs. what we'll see in Avatar.

I really wish I knew where that article was because I absolutely cannot explain it back to anyone very well.

So yea, more or less, your sarcastic remark is actually accurate.

[facepalm]

EDIT: I'll see if I can find that article and provide a link. Ugh, I cleared my history recently. Well, here it goes [off to Google]...
Reply

Edited by Twisk at 11/24/09 7:09 PM Twisk was starred Twisk was unstarred

Twisk
11/24/09

@CommentingpointlesslyisMeh: Okay, haven't found the article yet. But I've found several other articles that unfortunately do not go nearly into as much depth as the one I read a few weeks ago.

However, each of these articles keeps repeating the same thing. There's new 3D technology being used in Avatar that has never been used before - cameras which more closely mimic the Human eye.

Current 3D movies do not use this same technology. Again, it's been developed for Avatar.

I found this YouTube video. It's a little old now unfortunately. But as I've said repeatedly, the article I read (some friggin' where) talked about 3D movies we see today and how they can achieve pretty cool looking results, but it's nothing like what's been developed to be used for Avatar.

I'll keep searching for the article for you.
Reply

Edited by Twisk at 11/24/09 7:24 PM Twisk was starred Twisk was unstarred

getz76
11/24/09

In reply to Avatar: The Result of a Quest for the Holy Grail of Cameras
All that budget, and he's using an IP-infringing Behringer mixer. Really? Come on.
Reply

Kaiser-Machead promoted this comment getz76 was starred getz76 was unstarred

Kaiser-Machead
11/24/09

@getz76: Maybe he just uses it to record his voice in funny ways.
Reply

Kaiser-Machead was starred Kaiser-Machead was unstarred

joelydanger
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
Matt are you already judging the movie based on the trailer? You should know better than that. How you come to the conclusion that the fate of 3D movies is decided by how this one film does is a mystery to me. #3d
Reply

CustomFirmware promoted this comment joelydanger was starred joelydanger was unstarred

TheWormInYourApple
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
No Sokka? No thanks. #3d
Reply

CustomFirmware promoted this comment TheWormInYourApple was starred

NightInfinity
11/09/09

@TheWormInYourApple: My girlfriend woke me up early one morning. "Baby," sounding very hurt "They messed up Avatar bad... There's blue aliens and stuff." #3d
Reply

CustomFirmware promoted this comment NightInfinity was starred NightInfinity was unstarred

Alluvian
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
I don't get the headache thing regarding 3d. I used to use shutter glasses for all my pc gaming and could use them for 8+ hours with no headache problems at all. Also, halfway decent 3d isn't blurry at all. If it looks blurry to you, then your brain is somehow not properly focusing on it and that I can see could cause headaches.

So I can see that the technology might not be for everyone, but just because 3d is blurry and headache inducing to YOU, does not make it so to other people.

To me it looks like the second coming. For full disclosure I can also magic eyes without any effort and can also easily do the cross eyed two picture 3d thing easily.

What I can't do is the red/blue glasses because I am colorblind. THOSE just look blurry to me, but I know that is because of my eyes.

So don't crap on 3d because is it bad for YOU. I can understand you not wanting it to be the ONLY option. That would suck for you, like me playing a video game that does not have a color blind mode (most of them) #3d
Reply

fuchikoma promoted this comment Alluvian was starred Alluvian was unstarred

fuchikoma
11/09/09

@Alluvian: It's interesting that red/blue anaglyphs wouldn't work for you because you're colorblind... the filters basically just let one color pass more than another, so I'd have thought that on the red side, red would be light, and blue would be dark, and vice versa on the blue... #3d
Reply

fuchikoma was starred fuchikoma was unstarred

bonedog73
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
Looks awesome to me although I'd rather see the non-3d version, 3D has always been so gimmicky.

Just seems weird to spend $250+ million on a movie only to have people wear $2 crap glasses and make it all fuzzy and blurry... #3d
Reply

bonedog73 was starred bonedog73 was unstarred

Xeno
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
Don't be hatin' Matt. I seriously want to see this in IMAX 3D. Seriously, it looks awesome to me. #3d
Reply

Xeno was starred Xeno was unstarred

Jrsy Devil's Advocate®
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
In Cameron's movies, every shot is the money shot. Nobody does celluloid orgasms like him, except maybe Michael Bay.. #3d
Reply

Stevox
11/09/09

@Jrsy Devil's Advocate®: Ugh. Michael Bay is the vapid, two-dimensional, coat-tail-riding, over-the-top-but-without-any-substance, roller-coaster version of James Cameron. Michael Bay IS the poor man's James Cameron. #3d
Reply

Jrsy Devil's Advocate® promoted this comment Stevox was starred Stevox was unstarred

Jrsy Devil's Advocate®
11/09/09

@Stevox: I never said anything about content. #3d
Reply

Andy Mesa
11/12/09

@Jrsy Devil's Advocate®: Your argument then is "This will be good, because nobody is better than James Cameron...except Michael Bay."

Wow. #3d
Reply

Jrsy Devil's Advocate® promoted this comment Andy Mesa was starred Andy Mesa was unstarred

Jrsy Devil's Advocate®
11/12/09

@Andy Mesa: Wow, way to misread what I said. #3d
Reply

Raziel66
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
I don't understand the hate directed toward 3D, and this movie especially. I went to that 15 minute preview and everyone in the theater was speechless for the entire presentation. Avatar looked amazing in 3D. Anytime I see the 2D trailer I can help but think of how plain it looks and I tell people they are missing out.

3D really made everything stand out and seem more vibrant (the flora scene in particular). #3d
Reply

Dave J. promoted this comment Raziel66 was starred Raziel66 was unstarred

Dave J.
11/09/09

@Raziel66: But the problem is that TV sets and monitors showing the trailers aren't showing them in 3D. I mean, I get that it looks amazing in 3D. I'm sure that it does. But the big issue is that when you show people a trailer that looks--let's be honest--pretty lame, it's a huge leap of faith to then say "ah! But pay $15 to see it in 3-D, and then you will be really impressed!" #3d
Reply

Dave J. was starred Dave J. was unstarred

thatblackgirl
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
I know that it'll make tons of money because people will want to see the effects, but I have no interest in it because the script/story seems like the same old same old. #3d
Reply

thatblackgirl was starred thatblackgirl was unstarred

phunnyballs
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
I dont get this. So the 3d costs $500 million more to make it than if they just did it in 2d? or is it 2d +3d production = $500 million?

because in this article you seem like you hate avatar (you call avatar a folly), while in other Gawker articles the writers praise it for being awesome.

If you are saying just the 3d version is a POS, then perhaps the title should be,

"James Cameron's 500 million dollar foolish venture into the 3rd dimension"

instead of equating the movie overall to foolishness. #3d
Reply

phunnyballs was starred phunnyballs was unstarred

k-napped
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
If the future of 3D hangs in the balance... I will gladly stay home for this one. #3d
Reply

k-napped was starred k-napped was unstarred

LeopoldNestor
11/09/09

In reply to Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions
You know what is funny?

The last big movie he made was way overbudget. Titanic had a titanic budget and everyone said it would sink the studio. But look what happened.

This movie is going to make it's money, bet on it. I know there is a lot of hype backlash (very fashionable on the gawker network) but it is going to be an excellent movie and it will do just fine in the box office.

Reply

LeopoldNestor was starred LeopoldNestor was unstarred

incubushead
11/09/09

@LeopoldNestor: Agreed, 200 million for titanic 12 years ago should about equal 500 million now. I realize that amount of inflation is of course grossly overestimated but come on, we need good champion sci-fi movies that aren't star wars or star trek. #3d
Reply

Thee Sea promoted this comment incubushead was starred incubushead was unstarred

Thee Sea
11/09/09

@incubushead: You aren't even close. The difference is $53,000,000.

Not only that, but why can't it be those two franchises? James Cameron looks to be making science fiction that is hamfisted as what we were getting in the 1950s. #3d
Reply

Thee Sea was starred Thee Sea was unstarred

incubushead
11/09/09

@Thee Sea: lol yeah i was way off. We need a new universe or at least a new great movie to kick off new sci-fi ideas. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge ST and SW nerd but they really are the Google and Microsoft of sci-fi. #3d
Reply

incubushead was starred incubushead was unstarred

Thee Sea
11/09/09

@incubushead: Then look at indie stuff like Primer. You'd be surprised by the stuff coming out without a budget. #3d
Reply

Thee Sea was starred Thee Sea was unstarred

incubushead
11/09/09

@Thee Sea: Primer is terrific example of what I'm talking about. The problem is i found that movie by accident. I don't really know where to go to find decent, fresh sci-fi material. #3d
Reply

incubushead was starred incubushead was unstarred

Thee Sea
11/09/09

@incubushead: Who's to say that this will be decent and fresh? Everything we're seeing points to this being a generic scifi story wrapped up in a heavily CG package. #3d
Reply

Thee Sea was starred Thee Sea was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#jamescameron

Gizmodo

Gizmodo Team

SUBSCRIBE TO Gizmodo

Avatar: The Result of a Quest for the Holy Grail of Cameras

Avatar: James Cameron's $500 Million Folly, In Three Dimensions

Panasonic on Global Avatar Promotional Rampage With Army of Huge 3D Plasmas

Mecha Bot from James Cameron's Upcoming Avatar Makes Appearance at E3 Expo

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment