Continued. What the heck is new about that? All I can see is more CGI but nothing really revolutionary. Let's see. MATRIX 2 and 3 had virtual cameras and virtual sets. STAR WARS (prequels) had fully CGI characters. And no matter how much everybody hates Jar Jar, he's still the most believable of them all, only challenged by Gollum. Most video games have motion capture. Putting them in the shoot 'live' is evolution not revolution. All I can see is progress in terms of CPU power. 'course you couldn't do a whole world in 1992. But in 2008 when the CGI will probably be put in? Oh yes. Anyway, even tho this will quite likely suck major donkey balls it'll make the tech even cheaper and more readily available. And Cameron himself doesn't take any risks: there's another movie in the pipelines that uses exactly the same technology and has also a preliminary release date in 2009. It's called BATTLE ANGEL and the story sounds just as boring. It's not really a surprise that one director can do three huge movies at once (he's also at THE DIVE which sounds like a remake of LE GRAND BLEU) when most of the work is done by CG peeps. I think CGI should be there to supplement and do the otherwise impossible. It shouldn't be the reason to do a movie. And when will they learn that 3D on a normal theater screen just won't work.
Cameron has a great scifi record. Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator, some of the all-time classics. I'm not excited about the CGI characters (I don't think Jar Jar Binks or Gollum were ever believable) but the idea of human vs. alien army sounds good.
They looked better than their dialogue sounded: Obi-Wan: Attack those Federation starships! Trooper: Yes sir. Right away, sir. Anakin: I want a burger and fries. Trooper: Yes sir. Right away, sir. Palpatine: Go get me a spatula to scrape what's left of Lord Vader from this lava beach. Trooper: Yes sir. Right away, sir.
3D in conventional theaters... so in other words, limited release, only going to theaters that have 2 single-platter projectors, or 4 traditional projectors. 3 is not wholly unheard of, in case one fails, but 4? I've never heard of such a thing. Color me skeptical.
Yea, but that was before he started putting technology over anything else. All the movies that were mentioned here used it to support strong stories or at least make the whole thing an exciting ride. This sounds like a tech demo right out of Lucas' hell hole. But then I'll of course watch it. Just thought I had spotted a case of CGIitis.
No, Sky Captain had actors put into digital environments - i.e. everyone was acting in front of greenscreens. Saved them a shitload of money on sets and the like. It also wasn't exactly photorealistic, it was attempting to capture a feel of an older motion picture, so there was a lot of "fantastic" stuff in there too. That is a love-it or hate-it film, that's to be sure. I loved it, myself. This?
Davy Jones' pirate crew was done that way in PotCII. Check the behind-the-scenes scenes and you'll see actors in black skinsuits with mocap points on them. They did the mocap right there in the performance, interacting with the live actors, and the CGI characters were overlaid on the live action plate. It's getting easier and easier, apparently.
Brand new sci-fi, that isn't based on an already existing franchise, is risky. When was the last attempt? Chronicles of Riddick, and it tanked. The Matrix before that, and we got one classic, one real good film, and one piece of shit. Before that it was.....Stargate? If anyone knows this genre, it's Cameron. Trash Titanic all you want (and it's certainly been in vogue for a while), but it earned $600 million domestic. That, on top of his genre-defining masterpieces, and he's earned the right to do whatever he wants and spend as much money as he wants. I'm looking forward to it, despite the fact that I'm no fan of 3-D.
^ Indeed. He could take 200 million and make a rural phone book into a movie and he'd have every right. Question is, would anyone watch it. Names are no longer a guarantee for success in the age of the 'net.
Well, I will. I'll be more excited for Cameron's film that I will be for a 65 y/o Harrison Ford trying to run around as Indiana Jones again, working from a script approved by George Lucas, of all people.
