James Cameron's AVATAR

1678911

Comments

  • BandrikBandrik Elkhart, IN
    edited March 2010
    CB wrote:
    I was using DVD to mean "Digital Video Disc" implying any disc with digital video on it, which includes Blu-rays...

    Makes sense, but it was wayyy more fun to continue the running joke and poke Lynx between the ribs.
  • edited March 2010
    Lynx has a BluRay drive in his Rig you say? I didn't know you could order Norse gods with a BluRay drive installed in them. I might have to convert...
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA
    edited March 2010
    CB, I don't believe we'll be waiting that long for the DVD/BluRay release.

    Jim said himself that April 22nd was going to be the initial release (Earth Day... *groan*), with a 'mega super edition' released some time closer to Christmas.

    I've also read June 30th as the day on io9.

    Either way, sounds like they're pulling a Watchmen with multiple releases.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited March 2010
    OMG EARTH DAY?

    ferngully.jpg
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited March 2010
    Oh, I get it. Avatar must be pretty similar to Fern Gully, I guess.
  • MAGICMAGIC Doot Doot Furniture City, Michigan
    edited March 2010
    Avatar is Fern Gully, just with better graphics.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA
    edited March 2010
    hahahaha. Thank you Thrax, thats the hardest I've laughed all day.
  • GrimnocGrimnoc Marion, IN
    edited March 2010
    UPSLynx wrote:
    What DID make me rage, however, was skipping Jim Cameron for best director and giving that award to Katheryn Bigelow for Hurt Locker. It was a mistake to give that award to Bigelow, and a politically safe move if I've ever seen one. They made a huge deal about how it was 'about time' that a female got the Oscar for best director, and it was cute and everything.

    Cameron deserved that award for what he's done for filmmaking. AVATAR has sent shockwaves though Hollywood productions, Hurt Locker did nothing. For the advances he made, as well as introducing a truly director-centric model for production, without question that award should have gone to James Cameron.

    I know I shouldn't be doing this. I mean we all know that no good can come from it but....

    It's possible that Cameron didn't win best director because it was completely forgettable as far as directing was concerned. Seriously, in my mind the only reason it was put up for best director is that it was James Cameron and the movie was so huge. However, a movie being widely recognized and even greatly impacting the film industry (which I don't think it has, but whatever it's a separate argument) does not automatically mean it should win best director. Heck, even if a movie wins best picture it still doesn't mean it should also win best director. Best director is awarded to a movie with purely the best directing, and AVATAR was completely mediocre in this.

    Best Director awards have nothing to do with the impact of the film outside it's directing. If AVATAR had won best directing I would have went friggin' insane, though I hold little stock in the Oscars so this event wouldn't have come to pass. Yes, I just contradicted myself in the same sentence. What are you gonna do about it? Pansy-pants.
  • KoreishKoreish I'm a penguin, deal with it. KCMO
    edited March 2010
    Grimnoc wrote:
    Yes, I just contradicted myself in the same sentence. What are you gonna do about it? Pansy-pants.

    Continue to be indifferent probably.
  • edited March 2010
    Grimnoc wrote:
    I know I shouldn't be doing this. I mean we all know that no good can come from it but....

    It's possible that Cameron didn't win best director because it was completely forgettable as far as directing was concerned. Seriously, in my mind the only reason it was put up for best director is that it was James Cameron and the movie was so huge. However, a movie being widely recognized and even greatly impacting the film industry (which I don't think it has, but whatever it's a separate argument) does not automatically mean it should win best director. Heck, even if a movie wins best picture it still doesn't mean it should also win best director. Best director is awarded to a movie with purely the best directing, and AVATAR was completely mediocre in this.

    Best Director awards have nothing to do with the impact of the film outside it's directing. If AVATAR had won best directing I would have went friggin' insane, though I hold little stock in the Oscars so this event wouldn't have come to pass. Yes, I just contradicted myself in the same sentence. What are you gonna do about it? Pansy-pants.

    Directing in my mind is leading a highly collaborative effort? Its not just picking a camera angle or telling an actor what his motivation is before a scene, its leading everything that goes into the process of film making. In the modern era of film, this is extremely complex, when you weigh in everything that goes into making a great movie. Script, performances, lighting, FX, make up, costumes, music, everything, thats what the director is responsible for, choosing the right combination of everything that will hopefully equal a great film in total.

    If we limit the argument to challenges in modern film making (I say this begins with 2001 a Space Odyssey in 1968). Lets see what the academy thinks of directors.

    So since 1968 the best picture winner also had the best director winner, get this,,,,, 34 times in just 41 years.... my trusty calculator tells me thats 83% of the time, so....

    In essence great directing = making a great movie, which Avatar obviously is. Was it the best one this year? Arguably not, thats fair to say, but saying the James Cameron did not do an amazing job, well, we just can't see eye to eye on that. Cameron created at bare minimum a technical masterpiece that has advanced digital age film making, as well as a damn entertaining film. He deserved his nomination.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA
    edited March 2010
    When Peter Jackson, George Lucas, and steven spielberg demo the technology and come out impressed, you've made an impact. When George Lucas desides to re-release the original Star Wars trilogy in Stereo, and Effing Spielberg changes production to use Cameron's performance capture technology, you've changed the industry.

    The list hardly stops with those three.

    I'm not going to get long with this, because you're Jesse and you don't deserve it because I know you only want to cause conflict.

    James Cameron led one of the largest production crews in recent Hollywood history. He collaborated and directed some 10 different VFX studios located all across the world. He operated every single camera shot of the film, principle and virtual alike. he put more time into research and canon creation for this film than any other director I can think of (creating an encyclopedia of biology, creation of a language, creation of a physics system, ect). He even worked in Maya and Motionbuilder to help guide the artists towards his vision.

    Simply put, I do not believe there has ever been a director more directly involved with all of the steps of filmmaking. Technological merits aside, the amount of pure, hands on direction of every piece of this film marks an achievement worth noting.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA
    edited March 2010
    Also, I never acknowledged Bandrik's troll due to Thrax's masterfull Ferngully bit. I'll be the first to admit it - I bought a BluRay drive for two things - AVATAR and Pixar films.

    And Batman, too.
  • edited March 2010
    UPSLynx wrote:
    When Peter Jackson, George Lucas, and steven spielberg demo the technology and come out impressed, you've made an impact. When George Lucas desides to re-release the original Star Wars trilogy in Stereo, and Effing Spielberg changes production to use Cameron's performance capture technology, you've changed the industry.

    The list hardly stops with those three.

    I'm not going to get long with this, because you're Jesse and you don't deserve it because I know you only want to cause conflict.

    James Cameron led one of the largest production crews in recent Hollywood history. He collaborated and directed some 10 different VFX studios located all across the world. He operated every single camera shot of the film, principle and virtual alike. he put more time into research and canon creation for this film than any other director I can think of (creating an encyclopedia of biology, creation of a language, creation of a physics system, ect). He even worked in Maya and Motionbuilder to help guide the artists towards his vision.

    Simply put, I do not believe there has ever been a director more directly involved with all of the steps of filmmaking. Technological merits aside, the amount of pure, hands on direction of every piece of this film marks an achievement worth noting.

    game... set.... thread
  • edited March 2010
    UPSLynx wrote:
    Simply put, I do not believe there has ever been a director more directly involved with all of the steps of filmmaking. Technological merits aside, the amount of pure, hands on direction of every piece of this film marks an achievement worth noting.

    This statement amounts to sparking the debate between working hard... and working well...
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited March 2010
    He worked hard, and it generated him quite a few dollars in revenue, which would indicate it ended up working pretty well. Debate settled?
  • AlexDeGruvenAlexDeGruven Wut? Meechigan
    edited March 2010
    Snarkasm wrote:
    He worked hard, and it generated him quite a few dollars in revenue, which would indicate it ended up working pretty well. Debate settled?

    But you don't understand! The movie was an incredible commercial success. Therefore, it completely sucks, and nobody should ever watch it, or agree that it was worthy of any accolades or critical acclaim!
  • KoreishKoreish I'm a penguin, deal with it. KCMO
    edited March 2010
    Any think that he made the truckloads of money only because he released a summer blockbuster in the winter? You know when there aren't as many releases and people don't have as much to do.

    Now I'm not saying I didn't like it or that it doesn't deserve praise. But do any of you think it would have made nearly as much if it had been released in the summer?
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA
    edited March 2010
    I still think we'd be looking at the highest grossing film of all time, no matter the realease time frame. It made more being in the winter time, but you're still talking about a massive amount of people all over the world watching it multiple times. The enthusiasm the film has generated among its fans would have been there no matter the time frame.

    A lot of the money has come from over seas, and I think those numbers would have been affected even less during the Summer.
  • edited March 2010
    If anything, the winter release likely had the effect of simply prolonging the film's stay in theatre's, as most theatre companies run less sets per day outside the summer months.
  • edited March 2010
    Any think that he made the truckloads of money only because he released a summer blockbuster in the winter? You know when there aren't as many releases and people don't have as much to do.

    Now I'm not saying I didn't like it or that it doesn't deserve praise. But do any of you think it would have made nearly as much if it had been released in the summer?

    Anyone think him releasing it in the midst of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression caused it to make less money than it would have if it were released at the height of a huge economic bubble? ;)
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited March 2010
    Huh. Pretty decent point... though there's something to be said for people wanting to spend money on movies to "get away from it all" during a recession, as well.
  • edited March 2010
    I was more trying to make the point that arguing about if it would have done differently being released at a different time was a moot point. Arguments can be made either way but in the end it doesn't matter because it was released when it was released and it performed how it performed.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited March 2010
    Quite so, sir.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA
    edited March 2010
    Sound, agreeable logic in the AVATAR thread?

    holy crap guys, nice work.
  • CBCB Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Der Millionendorf-
    edited March 2010
    ardichoke wrote:
    Anyone think him releasing it in the midst of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression caused it to make less money than it would have if it were released at the height of a huge economic bubble? ;)

    Actually, I've been hearing on NPR money-type shows, like Marketplace, that movie theaters, and movies in general have been doing great business in this downturn, and that that's normal, as people stop going on vacations and other more expensive luxury things, they go to movies instead.
  • _k_k P-Town, Texas
    edited March 2010
    YBlSe.png
  • edited March 2010
    _k_ wrote:
    YBlSe.png

    Is that part of the Saving Ryan's Privates / Edward Penishands triple feature?
  • WinfreyWinfrey waddafuh Missouri
    edited March 2010
    I prefer Horny with a Chance of My Balls.
  • edited March 2010
    Winfrey wrote:
    I prefer Horny with a Chance of My Balls.

    Now this thread is going places.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited March 2010
    Sherlock Homos, Ghosts of Missy's Peepee... lul.
Sign In or Register to comment.