Nov 23 2009James Cameron on the Sixty Minute Program
Did you guys catch 60 Minutes the last night? That's OK; I know not everyone is a retiree who likes to fall asleep in his twin bed, drifting off to the sounds of in-depth news coverage. But if you had seen it, you'd know last night contained a profile on James Cameron, in which the director went into detail on the process behind Avatar, his career in general, and his stance on the OJ verdict. It was pretty interesting.
Unfortunately, Andy Rooney would negate all of Cameron's publicity efforts moments later when he went on a five-minute diatribe about how he doesn't think we should make any more moving picture talkies,* but still, pretty interesting. And now it's on online:
There's something sad about when James Cameron says maybe they'll be having this same conversation for Avatar 10, and Morley Safer clearly, mournfully recognizes he will never live that long.
*I'm just assuming it was something like that.
Reader Comments
1. che-che - November 23, 2009 12:49 PM
ads!!! lame.
uh. i am not...what!
2. Matt - November 23, 2009 1:16 PM
The guy is serious business and thats what I love about him. "Hey we are going to the superbowl"....I doubt Micheal Bay says that to his cast and crew before shooting a film. Oh and Avatar will own. Anyone who says otherwise after this post is a testicle chewing little bitch.
3. Animorganimate - November 23, 2009 1:25 PM
Mmmm...testes. OM NOM NOM NOM!!! It'll be a fine, well made sci-fi flick, but own? The story looks so damn generic. Like high school project generic. But it sure does look purty.
4. Nope - November 23, 2009 2:54 PM
Anyone who can only defend their opinion by calling anyone who feels differently a "testicle chewing little bitch" is exactly the kind of person who is just WAY too excited about a movie that is way overhyped.
It looks like it will be an enjoyable movie with nice special effects. Does it look like it's going to blow me away? Not really. I can already tell the movie story from start to finish from the trailer and it's pretty standard faire. The special effects alone aren't going to make me think that it's worth the hype so I think that this movie will probably "own" but only in the financial sense and will probably fall short of "ownage" otherwise. Still looks good, but let's not get fucking carried away here.
5. Hey Nope - November 23, 2009 3:42 PM
I can agree with you on the story and the standard fare but what you fail to realize is that what this movie will accomplish is something that hasn't been experienced yet.
Forget the story for a second. Remember that James Cameron filmed the Terminator 3D for Universal and that utilized 3 screens that wrapped around you. That was an immersive experience.
He is the first director to shoot a 2nd 3D film and knows how to present an experience. People will see the 2D version and wil see a film that has been told before. The 3D version will take you to another world.
With the advent of the technology being developed for this film, I'm sure that better films will come along. This will also push 3D home viewing.
6. sva1994 - November 23, 2009 6:15 PM
Morely Safer says in the opening scene that Titanic was the most profitable film ever made? How the fuck does he figure that? By calculating budget compared to profit, lots of films have been more profitable, including during the year Titanic came out: Good Will Hunting was made for $10 million, but made $138 million in ticket sales in the US alone (Hell, it made back its budget in its opening weekend), so it made back its budget tenfold (and I'm not even counting its worldwide performance). Titanic, on the other hand, was made for $200 million, but made $600 million in ticket sales. That's six times more than GWH's total, but a budget recoup of only threefold.
7. Drbendy - November 23, 2009 8:08 PM
I want to be excited, i want it to be good. But it looks like a 486 sx wet dream.
8. frank - November 23, 2009 8:35 PM
sva1994, profit is not measured in percentage, it's measured in total net gain. $400 million is a bigger profit than $128 million. I'm stoked about Avatar, but I fail to see what's so revolutionary about it. Sure, the CGI is way better than the shit Zemeckis is crapping out, and the action will be great, but how does this change the way movies are experienced and all that jibba-jabba?
9. Matt - November 23, 2009 10:52 PM
@8....the 3D is whats gonna make this movie revolutionary. People cant tell from watching it on a 2D platform but this 3D isnt like the 3D we are all used to. Its almost "holographic"...you are "in" the movie. Trust me....it'll be something like you've never seen.
10. Madnug - November 24, 2009 1:18 AM
Looks good, Im curious though, watching the clips reminds me of a book written ten years ago and published recently called Scout Squad, when I saw the trailer I thought I was watching a movie based on that book strange.
11. che-che - November 24, 2009 10:49 AM
do any of the animals have fur. i dont think i have spotted any hairy beasts yet.
12. duketrik - November 24, 2009 12:28 PM
Did that Mutha-F***ker Safer just call him "Jim"? It's JAMES, BITCH!...
...also, that commercial made me highly uncomfortable. Are the drug companies now trying to GUILT us into making our penises bigger? Really? Look, I'm sure it's fine for that guy and my step-dad (ughk), but mine's ok.
Thanks anyway, though.
13. Bowie - November 24, 2009 5:35 PM
Guy is a Brilliant Director.
14. robweeve - November 24, 2009 8:50 PM
the color in the animation is too brilliant, much more saturated than colors generally found in nature. as a result there's a synthetic quality to the animation that lessens the realness of that which is not real. too bad, but still, the film should be extremely entertaining.
15. Battery Help - November 24, 2009 9:02 PM
Are you want to own the cheapest battery Help
16. Battery Help - November 24, 2009 9:03 PM
Are you want to own the cheapest battery Help
17. Wut - December 3, 2009 3:21 AM
"What do you want to work on next?"
"I don't know"
GOD DAMN ASS HAT, BETTER GET ME MY BATTLE ANGEL OR LEAVE IT ALONE. :
18. WhiteFire25 - December 3, 2009 7:53 AM
"He is the first director to shoot a 2nd 3D film and knows how to present an experience. People will see the 2D version and wil see a film that has been told before. The 3D version will take you to another world.
With the advent of the technology being developed for this film, I'm sure that better films will come along. This will also push 3D home viewing."
Hate to break this to you, since you haven't noticed apparently.....there's been a shit ton of 3D movies came out this past year!!!! We are all aware of what new 3D technology is like. Cameron is coming into this WAYYYYY too late, and there's nothing he could do in his stupid ass movie, that's going to make it any more impressive.
All you brainless idiots who actually believe that crap, haven't the foggiest damn idea about how 3D works in the first place. If you had any clue, you'd know that there's nothing else they can do with it at this point.
Now, if they were going to say, project the movie into your brain and actually make you feel like you were with everyone IN THE MOVIE, yeah.....that would be revolutionary.
This will revolutionize nothing. All it's doing, is herding all the stupid ass sheep together, as usual.
19. Unreal101 - December 3, 2009 4:29 PM
@ WhiteFire25
um... read the fine print that you just quoted, "He is the first director to shoot a 2nd 3D film..." That doesn't mean he's the 2nd director overall to go 3D. He was one of the first way back, when T2: 3D battle across time came out in universal theme parks, to bring 3D back to us. So he's late in the game only b/c the tech needed to make this film was currently being made.
when the movie opens, good reviews or not, good movie or not, it will for sure change the way cinema and 3D and computer effects combine to make an unprecedented film of extraordinary imagery.
So in other words, you're a jackass.
I work in 3D productions and stills and I'm studying animation. All the things this movies is amounting to is literally amazing.
think before you type next time.