Cameron and Avatar
swa...@concentric.com
http://www.canoe.ca/Jam/canoejam.html
HOLLYWOOD -- If James Cameron was an 800-pound gorilla before
Titanic and its 11 Oscars, who knows how much weight he can throw around
in Hollywood now.
Perhaps even enough to make his dream project, Avatar, which he has said
will cost at least $300 million US - but not because of outlandish sets
and
sinking ships, because he intends to create at least six of the film's
main
characters on computer.
No real-life actors - taking Toy Story, in which the cartoon characters
were
entirely digital, to the ultimate level. These cybernetic actors are
being called
"synthespians" and "vactors."
Cameron actually created the first synthetic star in Terminator 2's
morphing
character, but that computer creation was based on digital scans of
real-life
actor Robert Patrick.
In Titanic, Cameron went on to create fully digital characters which
walk
the decks of the ship and, more spectacularly, fall to their deaths as
the great
ship founders. But those digital extras weren't talking or acting; they
weren't,
as Cameron calls them, "organically believable lip-syncing characters."
Which is his challenge with Avatar, he said in an interview with Wired
magazine, to create "real people, real characters. If we can pull it
off, Avatar
will be the coolest film ever made. If not, we'll have egg on our face."
The buzz in Hollywood techno-circles in the past month is that Cameron's
Digital Domain company has succeeded in creating a synthetic character
that
walks around a room and then sits in a chair - and that in a secret
test
conducted Feb. 27, viewers couldn't tell the difference between it and
footage of a real human.
All of this may have the computer nuts going wild, but there are others
not
so keen on Cameron's advances. Those computer casualties in Titanic may
have cut down on the cost of insurance and risking stuntmen - but they
did so
by cutting jobs.
"Of course we are not terribly pleased with the prospect that we'll be
dinosaurs in 10 years," says David Boushey, the president of the United
Stuntmen's Association, from his office and stunt-training school in
Seattle.
"A number of stunt performers who otherwise would have been involved in
Titanic were not because they were replaced by computers."
Boushey, who was the stunt co-ordinator on such films as Drugstore
Cowboy and Blue Velvet, and worked for such actors as William Hurt,
Tommy Lee Jones and Denzel Washington and others, says that in the
future, "we'll still be doing basic utility stunt work like fight
sequences and
driving the cars, but all the high-profile specialty work could go
digital. Those
are the guys, the specialists, who will really suffer."
But where technology already cost stuntmen jobs on Titanic, the world of
live-action CD-ROMS may offer new work, says Boushey.
In fact, he recently completed the X-Files interactive CD-ROM. "So what
we lose in one area we might pick up in an other area."
But not for the same reason as the stuntmen's association. SAG
executives
simply don't think directors like Cameron will take the real-life actor
out of
the mix, preferring to use them - like he did with Robert Patrick - as
templates on which to build digital characters.
And the union points out that even effects master Dennis Muren - who has
won nine Oscars and is one of the leaders in synthespian technology
-predicts that living actors won't be entirely replaced.
"Acting is like magic," Muren says. "It's a cliche, but something
either works
or it doesn't ... that's why everyone can't be an actor."
Dave Platt
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 swa...@concentric.com wrote:
: http://www.canoe.ca/Jam/canoejam.html
:
: HOLLYWOOD -- If James Cameron was an 800-pound gorilla before
: Titanic and its 11 Oscars, who knows how much weight he can throw around
:
: in Hollywood now.
;
: Perhaps even enough to make his dream project, Avatar, which he has said
:
: will cost at least $300 million US - but not because of outlandish sets
: and
: sinking ships, because he intends to create at least six of the film's
: main
: characters on computer.
:
: No real-life actors - taking Toy Story, in which the cartoon characters
: were
: entirely digital, to the ultimate level. These cybernetic actors are
: being called
: "synthespians" and "vactors."
Man oh man! He's beaten Lucas to the ultimate goal - making a movie
without using actual human beings.
Give me Ed Wood any day over this. At least his actors had pulses.
Goro
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 18:37:20 GMT, Dave Platt <woo...@freenet.mb.ca>
wrote:
What about Dark Crystal?
-Goro
Franknseus
>Perhaps even enough to make his dream project, Avatar, which he has said
>
>will cost at least $300 million US
<snip>
>Digital Domain company has succeeded in creating a synthetic character
>that
> walks around a room and then sits in a chair - and that in a secret
>test
>conducted Feb. 27, viewers couldn't tell the difference between it and
>footage of a real human.
Is this the biggest scam in the history of money, or what? Remember when they
said Max Headroom was computer generated, and wouldn't credit Matt Frewer for
playing him? Well if audiences can't even tell the difference, I say just hire
an unknown and pocket two of those millions.
If it's not a scam, though, it is an incredible waste of money. Sure, it's an
interesting gimmick, but it seems like if you're going to make synthetic actors
they should be able to do something that the real actors can't - you should be
able to tell the difference.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss, Super Monster
--
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center
http://www.bucketheadland.com/visitorcenter/
clo...@worldnet.att.net
Goro wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 18:37:20 GMT, Dave Platt <woo...@freenet.mb.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 swa...@concentric.com wrote:
> >
> >: http://www.canoe.ca/Jam/canoejam.html
> >:
> >: HOLLYWOOD -- If James Cameron was an 800-pound gorilla before
> >: Titanic and its 11 Oscars, who knows how much weight he can throw around
> >:
> >: in Hollywood now.
> >;
> >:
> >: will cost at least $300 million US - but not because of outlandish sets
> >: and
> >: sinking ships, because he intends to create at least six of the film's
> >: main
> >: characters on computer.
> >:
> >: No real-life actors - taking Toy Story, in which the cartoon characters
> >: were
> >: entirely digital, to the ultimate level. These cybernetic actors are
> >: being called
> >: "synthespians" and "vactors."
> >
> >Man oh man! He's beaten Lucas to the ultimate goal - making a movie
> >without using actual human beings.
>
> What about Dark Crystal?
>
> -Goro
>
> >Give me Ed Wood any day over this. At least his actors had pulses.
Where's the high cost for "Avatar" coming from then if everything is
done on a computer? I'd be curious as to how costs of CG effects are
allotted and where the money goes to. I assume DD owns the kind of
equipment to make it happen as is. Is that amount for payment of the
artists?
To be honest, while it sounds like an interesting idea, I think James
Cameron should not be in a position to spend that much money, US
dollars, ever again. If audience members want to spend their money and
the result is that a film grosses a billion, fine. But high grosses are
no excuse to spend that kind of money. Remember, $300 million that
comes from a lot of people each spending $8 is not the same as one
studio or director spending that much. We need to think about the
ethical repercussions of spending that much on an entertainment product.
If Cameron really believed as he claimed that "Titanic" cost too much,
then he should have given a chunk of his money to either the real
Titanic survivors or to major disaster relief funds. If he gave even 20
million away, he'd still have 40. Saying that the Titanic was a tragedy
and portraying a tragedy at a high cost doesn't do shit for real tragedy
surviviors.
Ben
James Bjorkman
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 clo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> We need to think about the
> ethical repercussions of spending that much on an entertainment product.
This is so very true. You hit it right on the head. But the Titanic
people on the list here won't agree - 'cuz then they wouldn't get to sit
on their butts and get their jollies out of obscenely expensive movies
like this. Like, let the homeless and deprived and real-life victims of
the world suffer - just so long as they can have a good time on Saturday
night and imagine they're "honoring" actual victims.
Perhaps what you're driving at is that society has lost all perspective as
to the line between brutal reality and extravagant self-indulgence.
Cameron epitomizes this. Unfortunately, society rewards people like him
for winning, not for good deeds or having any sort of moral compass.
> Saying that the Titanic was a tragedy and portraying a tragedy at a high
> cost doesn't do shit for real tragedy surviviors.
Yes. This is true. But if people view any expenditure as justified so
long as the public approves, i.e., pays to see it, well, they don't have
any moral or ethical responsibility in the first place. Instead you
get naked greed and self-satisfied egomaniacs. And "king of the world"
and "let's party 'til dawn" blather that doesn't even have the decency to
be meant ironically.
jb
Dukjin Im
20 million is "obscenely expensive" for a movie by the reasoning presented
in this thread (namely... no reasoning at all other than big numbers are
obscene).
20 million for one actor's salary is "obscenely expensive" too.
But how is making $20,000 and living in an "obscenely large" living area any
different from an ethical standpoint?
I'm sure there are many starving North Koreans who think 99% of Americans
earn an obscene amount of money, and waste obscene amounts of food. To most
people it seems an "obscene amount" is any number that's much bigger than
what they themselves earn.
Cameron can spend any amount he wants if he can find people who will back
him with their money (which they can spend any way they want). It's
hypocritical to criticize in this case. If you had the opportunity to spend
an obscene amount of money on real estate that you knew would return your
investment triple, would you jump at it or not?
In business, things cost what people are willing to spend on them. In a
Cameron movie, the investors make more than their money back. What's wrong
with that?
Besides, the 300 million for Avatar thing is *just a rumor*. If you're gonna
jump on him, wait till he at least commits to the project.
-Duk
clo...@worldnet.att.net
> : no excuse to spend that kind of money. Remember, $300 million that
> : comes from a lot of people each spending $8 is not the same as one
> : ethical repercussions of spending that much on an entertainment product.
>
> Surely you can't be serious. Even if one were to consider the cost of a
> movie as an ethical factor, it would need to be scaled against the number
> of people who enjoyed the movie. Hence, unprofitable movies become
> unethical to produce, because the money could have been used for a more
> popular movie which would have achieved a higher entertainment/cost ratio.
>
> Jeff
First of all, yes I can be serious about this and I am. What about
other films which most Americans won't see and which can be made at 1/10
of "Titanic"'s cost, or even the other blockbuster films which only cost
say 60 million dollars? Lots of films can be "enjoyed". Why should
expensive movies be made simply because smaller movies aren't liked by
the mainstream? The thing is to expose them to something other than
just explosions. Plus, with the right talent, a little creativity goes
a long way, so that the solution to a creative problem shouldn't be "we
need more money". Don't try to tell me that because we enjoyed
"Titanic" we should justify its price. If it can't be made for a
certain price, you don't go forward, you kill the project. The object
of the filmmaker is to work within certain parameters. Instead of
forcing him to be more creative or dropping the project, the studios let
Cameron have whatever he wanted. There are other films that can give
pleasure, and other "blockbusters" that can certainly heighten the same
thrill senses in people. Your reasoning is flawed, because what we
enjoy is relative (hell, I was forced to screen the big Disney flick
"Meet the Deedles", and I can think of tons of less expensive films I
enjoyed way more).
For a "moderate" Hollywood budget, If a film *is* going to be $35-40
million, I think it's only acceptable when the money is mostly going to
the make the production better and not to line the stars' pockets. This
seems to be the only way a production can go forward without being an
exercise in vanity.
Ben
Robert D. Adams
Dukjin Im wrote:
>
> 20 million is "obscenely expensive" for a movie by the reasoning presented
> in this thread (namely... no reasoning at all other than big numbers are
> obscene).
I agree. The statement that spending a large amount of money on the production of a movie is somehow an
ethical violation is ridiculous bordering on insane. Besides which, the decision as to what is called "a
large amount" is clearly an arbitrary one. Why not set the "Ethical Spending Cap" at $37.3 million, for
instance?
We're not talking about spending tax money here, nor has anyone advocated stealing money from orphans to
pay for the next hollywood blockbuster. We're talking about the investment of money by individuals and
businesses who face the very strong possibility of losing their investment. Why lable a high budget
movie as "unethical spending," unless you also condemn the construction of shopping malls, discoteques,
and bowling alleys?
How about museums for that matter? Don't museums spend huge amounts of money collecting art and cultural
artifacts for no good reason when they could just as easily purchase beans and flour for the hungry?
Aren't those vast marble halls wasted on a bunch of statues and gew-gaws when they could be used to
shelter the homeless?
James Bjorkman quipped: "But the Titanic people on the list here won't agree - 'cuz then they wouldn't
get to sit on their butts and get their jollies out of obscenely expensive movies like this."
Well I ain't a Titanic person. In fact I've still never seen the movie. I'm as shocked as anyone else
at the reports of how much it cost to make, but I don't agree with the absurd proposition that the
expense represents some sort of ethical violation.
As far as business investments are concerned, the whole film industry is still small potatoes. Meanwhile
they provide a lot of entertainment, diversion, and excitement for a lot of people. I for one will not
hesitate to spend my money on movies if it suits me. That doesn't have any impact on my moral status,
and it doesn't mean I'm any more or less compassionate or "good" than someone who spends less on movies.
Despite the previously voiced objection that the individual filmgoers are not the ones whose ethics are
being questioned, it is the film audience who ultimately pays for the cost of the films which succeed.
Therefore, any criticism of the cost of Titanic should be targeted at the audience.
"Boo for you, you bad Titanic fans... you spent your hard earned money on a movie when you could have
bought a slice of pizza for a homeless person!"
Walker Murray
>Don't try to tell me that because we enjoyed
>"Titanic" we should justify its price. If it can't be made for a
>certain price, you don't go forward, you kill the project. The object
>of the filmmaker is to work within certain parameters. Instead of
>forcing him to be more creative or dropping the project, the studios let
>Cameron have whatever he wanted. There are other films that can give
>pleasure, and other "blockbusters" that can certainly heighten the same
>thrill senses in people. Your reasoning is flawed, because what we
>enjoy is relative (hell, I was forced to screen the big Disney flick
>"Meet the Deedles", and I can think of tons of less expensive films I
>enjoyed way more).
>
>Ben
You view filmmaking as the act of creating a product which will bring the
studio a large profit margin? Sick.
webm...@film.tierranet.com
>
> Where's the high cost for "Avatar" coming from then if everything is
> done on a computer? I'd be curious as to how costs of CG effects are
> allotted and where the money goes to.
It goes to the people that actually do all the work and the computer
costs.
I would guess that all this costs hundreds of dollars per hour and I'm
sure
they have some super expensive process for tranferring it to film.
> I assume DD owns the kind of
> equipment to make it happen as is. Is that amount for payment of the
> artists?
>
> To be honest, while it sounds like an interesting idea, I think James
> Cameron should not be in a position to spend that much money, US
> dollars, ever again. If audience members want to spend their money and
> the result is that a film grosses a billion, fine. But high grosses are
> no excuse to spend that kind of money. Remember, $300 million that
> comes from a lot of people each spending $8 is not the same as one
> studio or director spending that much. We need to think about the
> ethical repercussions of spending that much on an entertainment product.
>
> If Cameron really believed as he claimed that "Titanic" cost too much,
> then he should have given a chunk of his money to either the real
> Titanic survivors or to major disaster relief funds. If he gave even 20
> million away, he'd still have 40. Saying that the Titanic was a tragedy
> and portraying a tragedy at a high cost doesn't do shit for real tragedy
> surviviors.
>
> Ben
But all the real tragery survivors are, well, dead of old age. No one's
really suffering from the Titanic disaster anymore. To give $20 million
to survivors (of which there probably isn't more than a dozen or two)
would be plain stupid. Besides, I'm sure the survivors have long since
cashed in on the disaster themselves by writing books or selling their
stories.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I quite agree that Cameron should never
have been given that kind of money and I'm sure the studio's would never
be stupid enough to give him $300 million for his Avatar film.
Jeffrey Bell
clo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: To be honest, while it sounds like an interesting idea, I think James
: Cameron should not be in a position to spend that much money, US
: dollars, ever again. If audience members want to spend their money and
: the result is that a film grosses a billion, fine. But high grosses are
: no excuse to spend that kind of money. Remember, $300 million that
: comes from a lot of people each spending $8 is not the same as one
: studio or director spending that much. We need to think about the
: ethical repercussions of spending that much on an entertainment product.
Surely you can't be serious. Even if one were to consider the cost of a
Derek Janssen
So, just fill me in on the background--It's been two years since the
project was first declared dead, so I've forgotten:
Just why DOES Cameron want to spend $300 mil on "Toy Story II"?...
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Dave Platt
On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Richard Johnson wrote:
:
: The bigger budget they give Cameron, the better. He's one of the
: greatest film auteurs in history. Hell, give him a billion dollar
: budget. Let those of much lesser talent produce the small arthouse
: films.
How much is he paying you to suck up to him?
James Bjorkman
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, Dukjin Im wrote:
> 20 million is "obscenely expensive" for a movie by the reasoning presented
> in this thread (namely... no reasoning at all other than big numbers are
> obscene).
Hmmm. I suppose by your reasoning, $20 trillion for a film is reasonable,
too, as long as enough people are willing to mortgage their homes or go
into bankruptcy to go see it. Judgments must always be made about what is
reasonable - that is, if one is reasonable.
> 20 million for one actor's salary is "obscenely expensive" too.
Could be. Your point?
> But how is making $20,000 and living in an "obscenely large" living area any
> different from an ethical standpoint?
Anyone who can't see the difference between a person struggling to earn a
living wage and fat cats diverting massive amounts of investment capital
to celluloid isn't thinking reasonable.
> I'm sure there are many starving North Koreans who think 99% of Americans
> earn an obscene amount of money, and waste obscene amounts of food. To most
> people it seems an "obscene amount" is any number that's much bigger than
> what they themselves earn.
Funny you should mention Korea. Perhaps you are aware that the Korean
government was concerned that filmgoers there were spending money they
truly couldn't afford to spend to see Titanic. Or, perhaps you weren't
aware, but it's still true.
Of course, the same thing is being debated in a different context in South
Carolina. There, it's about machine gambling, but it's the same
principle. That is, it's about large investments in "entertainment"
(there, gambling) inducing people to throw their money away beyond
their means. It's all about what's reasonable.
> Cameron can spend any amount he wants if he can find people who will back
> him with their money (which they can spend any way they want).
Yup, and he's sure proven it. But they can't spend it any way they want -
for example, they can't legally invest in drug trafficking, despite the
huge payoffs. There are always limits. And it may be time to think
about reasonable limits on film spending, as J. Katzenberg once said.
> It's hypocritical to criticize in this case. If you had the opportunity
> to spend an obscene amount of money on real estate that you knew would
> return your investment triple, would you jump at it or not?
Well, you can do better than that in the drug trade. Cigaret
makers can make big bucks by targetting certain minorities. Wouldn't you
jump at those opportunities? What one could do and what one should do are
often very different things. The Korean government's concerns should be
troubling to anyone with a conscience.
> In business, things cost what people are willing to spend on them. In a
> Cameron movie, the investors make more than their money back. What's wrong
> with that?
There are social costs. That money could be allocated to
investment in something productive, especially in developing countries
and poor areas that need capital more than you might (that is, the ticket
money in those countries generated by the hype for "event" movies like
Titanic might otherwise actually feed some people, and society as a
whole might be better off if the investors' original stake also went
into something productive).
> Besides, the 300 million for Avatar thing is *just a rumor*. If you're gonna
> jump on him, wait till he at least commits to the project.
I'm not jumping on Cameron for Avatar. I am enunciating a general
argument. If it does fit Cameron - fine.
jb
James Bjorkman
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, Robert D. Adams wrote:
> I agree. The statement that spending a large amount of money on the
> production of a movie is somehow an ethical violation is ridiculous
> bordering on insane. Besides which, the decision as to what is called
> "a large amount" is clearly an arbitrary one. Why not set the "Ethical
> Spending Cap" at $37.3 million, for instance?
Actually, the idea of spending caps has been raised before - in Hollywood
itself. Ever hear of Jeffrey Katzenberg? Is he insane? So what if he
had different motives.
> We're not talking about spending tax money here, nor has anyone
> advocated stealing money from orphans to pay for the next hollywood
> blockbuster. We're talking about the investment of money by individuals
> and businesses who face the very strong possibility of losing their
> investment. Why lable a high budget movie as "unethical spending,"
> unless you also condemn the construction of shopping malls, discoteques,
> and bowling alleys?
I haven't heard of any $250+ million bowling alleys.
> How about museums for that matter? Don't museums spend huge amounts of
> money collecting art and cultural artifacts for no good reason when they
> could just as easily purchase beans and flour for the hungry? Aren't
> those vast marble halls wasted on a bunch of statues and gew-gaws when
> they could be used to shelter the homeless?
Obviously, you need a sense of proportion in life. I don't think anyone
sees a lack of proportion in museum investments. Many do in $250+ million
investments in celluloid.
> Well I ain't a Titanic person. In fact I've still never seen the movie.
> I'm as shocked as anyone else at the reports of how much it cost to
> make, but I don't agree with the absurd proposition that the expense
> represents some sort of ethical violation.
I haven't seen it either. The fact that you're shocked is good enough for
me, regardless of how you choose to categorize it.
> As far as business investments are concerned, the whole film industry is
> still small potatoes.
Yikes! I was saying this just the other day. And got attacked for it.
Imagine that.
> Meanwhile they provide a lot of entertainment, diversion, and excitement
> for a lot of people. I for one will not hesitate to spend my money on
> movies if it suits me. That doesn't have any impact on my moral status,
> and it doesn't mean I'm any more or less compassionate or "good" than
> someone who spends less on movies.
Well, you could say the same thing about crack cocaine. But society puts
limits on that. The degree of social cost may be different, but the
principle is essentially the same - when something attractive is put in
front of people that causes them to indirectly harm society and/or
themselves, it's time to think about putting limits on it. Regardless of
your personal likes and dislikes.
> Despite the previously voiced objection that the individual filmgoers
> are not the ones whose ethics are being questioned, it is the film
> audience who ultimately pays for the cost of the films which succeed.
> Therefore, any criticism of the cost of Titanic should be targeted at
> the audience.
Same could be said for the drug trade. Different harms, different
degrees, same principles. But it's drug kingpins who have to be put out
of business.
jb
Jeffrey Bell
clo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: First of all, yes I can be serious about this and I am. What about
: other films which most Americans won't see and which can be made at 1/10
: of "Titanic"'s cost, or even the other blockbuster films which only cost
: say 60 million dollars? Lots of films can be "enjoyed". Why should
: expensive movies be made simply because smaller movies aren't liked by
: the mainstream?
Most importantly, so the mainstream will go to the movies and not spend
their money on more cable channels or new shoes for the kids.
How about this: millions of people saw Titanic, told their friends to see
Titanic, and claimed that they liked the movie. Assuming that those
people aren't liars, isn't it safe to say that Titanic generated more
pleasure than any other movie this year? You can't throw out a dollar
amount, say it's obscene, and then claim that the number of viewers does
not matter.
BTW, I saw it, I liked it a little... I thought the plot was dippy, and I
liked the sets and the explosions. Others have explained my sentiments
more eloquently.
: The thing is to expose them to something other than
: just explosions.
Thanks dad. Unfortunately people can still see whatever movies they want,
including the thoughtful ones.
Plus, with the right talent, a little creativity goes
: a long way, so that the solution to a creative problem shouldn't be "we
: need more money".
Irrelevant. Who cares whether they invest in talent or in technology?
Don't try to tell me that because we enjoyed
: "Titanic" we should justify its price. If it can't be made for a
: certain price, you don't go forward, you kill the project. The object
: of the filmmaker is to work within certain parameters. Instead of
Commie!!!
: forcing him to be more creative or dropping the project, the studios let
: Cameron have whatever he wanted. There are other films that can give
: pleasure, and other "blockbusters" that can certainly heighten the same
: thrill senses in people. Your reasoning is flawed, because what we
: enjoy is relative (hell, I was forced to screen the big Disney flick
: "Meet the Deedles", and I can think of tons of less expensive films I
: enjoyed way more).
You have to trust people to know what they like, to know what's best for
themselves.
: For a "moderate" Hollywood budget, If a film *is* going to be $35-40
: million, I think it's only acceptable when the money is mostly going to
: the make the production better and not to line the stars' pockets. This
: seems to be the only way a production can go forward without being an
: exercise in vanity.
: Ben
Big-money art is an exercise in vanity?
Let me explain what little I know about economics. There's the curiously
American phrase of "making money". Investing money in a successful
project does not necessarily mean that it will be unavailable for
something else, because the economy is not a pie. Making $200 million
turn into $1 billion is almost always a good thing, because it means that
the economy is that much bigger, that society becomes that much richer.
Everybody wins.
In the case of Titanic, in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars,
society throws another piece of art (good, bad, or mediocre) into the
cultural stockpile. We'll put it next to _Clerks_, a great movie.
Jeff
The ScriptPro 2000 System
Franknseus wrote:
someone else wrote:
Perhaps even enough to make his dream project, Avatar,
which he has said will cost at least $300 million US
<snip>
Digital Domain company has succeeded in creating a
synthetic character that walks around a room and then
sits in a chair - and that in a secret test
conducted Feb. 27, viewers couldn't tell the difference
between it and footage of a real human.
Is this the biggest scam in the history of money, or what?
Remember when they said Max Headroom was computer generated, and
wouldn't credit Matt Frewer for playing him? Well if audiences
can't even tell the difference, I say just hire an unknown and
pocket two of those millions.
If it's not a scam, though, it is an incredible waste of money.
Sure, it's an interesting gimmick, but it seems like if you're
going to make synthetic actors they should be able to do
something that the real actors can't - you should be able to
tell the difference.
You will be, Bryan. I've read AVATAR, and Cameron's not trying to
recreate humans here. He's trying to create alien beings that no human
actor could play in a suit or makeup. His aliens are the synthespians
in the movie, although I'm sure there will still be a real actor voicing
the role. In a lot of ways, this isn't so much a replacement as an
augmentation for actors.
I think replacing stuntmen (as the rest of the original post discussed)
is a wonderful thing. There is no downside to this. "But the guys who
jump off burning buildings into a glass of water will be out of work."
GOOD! We should never have another fatal accident on a film set because
some stunt man is trying to push the envelope or because some director
doesn't think it looks "real enough."
AVATAR will also cost ungodly money because Cameron will be creating a
totally foreign environment with his alien planet. I actually hope he
opts for this and not SPIDERMAN. I liked this scriptment and think it
could be developed into a pretty groovy movie. SPIDERMAN, on the other
hand, blows.
Drew
POISONVILLE, LTD.
http://www.pacificnet.net/~noname/Roundup.html
Want to write me back? Figure out the NOSPAM thing... I dare you.
"I have seen the future... and it's a BALD-HEADED MAN FROM NEW YORK!!"
-- Albert Brooks, LOST IN AMERICA
ELurio
>>I'm sure there are many starving North Koreans who think 99% of Americans
earn an obscene amount of money, and waste obscene amounts of food. To most
people it seems an "obscene amount" is any number that's much bigger than what
they themselves earn.<<
Yes!!! and the guy who's forcing them to starve is a godlike figure who's got
their best interests at heart.
eric l.
Dan Day
On Sun, 29 Mar 1998 00:08:43 -0500, James Bjorkman <bjor...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>Hmmm. I suppose by your reasoning, $20 trillion for a film is reasonable,
>too, as long as enough people are willing to mortgage their homes or go
>into bankruptcy to go see it. Judgments must always be made about what is
>reasonable - that is, if one is reasonable.
Fine -- if it ever gets to the point where people are actually
mortgaging their homes to see a movie, I'll concede that you have
a point.
Until then, I *still* think you're way, way, *way* over the top.
James Bjorkman
On 29 Mar 1998, Dan Day wrote:
> Fine -- if it ever gets to the point where people are actually
> mortgaging their homes to see a movie, I'll concede that you have
> a point.
Why, that's mighty big of you.
Dan Day
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:13:03 -0500, James Bjorkman <bjor...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>This is so very true. You hit it right on the head. But the Titanic
>people on the list here won't agree - 'cuz then they wouldn't get to sit
>on their butts and get their jollies out of obscenely expensive movies
>the world suffer - just so long as they can have a good time on Saturday
>night and imagine they're "honoring" actual victims.
And you've donated what huge portion of *your* income to charity?
Sheesh, the lengths to which some people will go to make ridiculously
strained slams against people who enjoyed a particular movie just
keeps getting more and more ludicrous.
I've spent about $20 on "Titanic" viewings -- I suppose I could
have saved the world with that kind of "wasted" money, eh?
Sheesh.
Roy.D...@exeter.ac.uk
In article <199803282248...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
frank...@aol.com (Franknseus) wrote:
>
> Is this the biggest scam in the history of money, or what? Remember when
they
> said Max Headroom was computer generated, and wouldn't credit Matt Frewer
for
> playing him? Well if audiences can't even tell the difference, I say just
hire
> an unknown and pocket two of those millions.
> If it's not a scam, though, it is an incredible waste of money.
>
If anyone is interested in _real_ financial scams see my web pages (:
Financial Scandals
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/scandals/
Similarly if you are interested in the history of money in general see
History of Money from Ancient Times to the Present Day
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/llyfr.html
Roy
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
James Bjorkman
On 30 Mar 1998, Dan Day wrote:
> And you've donated what huge portion of *your* income to charity?
> Sheesh, the lengths to which some people will go to make ridiculously
> strained slams against people who enjoyed a particular movie just
> keeps getting more and more ludicrous.
> I've spent about $20 on "Titanic" viewings -- I suppose I could
> have saved the world with that kind of "wasted" money, eh?
Hey, as long as you don't trip over the homeless on the way into the
theater everything's cool, right? It's cool, it's cool, everybody should
go spend their bucks on flics and not on something - sniff - noble.
Ryan McGinnis
Hi, James! I'm not sure if you're faulting this guy or not. You
sound as if you are; if this is the case, then let's be the first to
admit your (and my) own hypocracy. The very fact that you are sitting
down at a computer screen, using an internet service, and sending
messages over a global network of very expensive equipment -- proves
that you are just as caught up in the "system" as everyone else, and
by no means are "pure" enough to go around slamming other people for
not being generous enough. Strip down naked and go live in the
Brazillian rainforest off of animals you hunt -- *then* you can throw
rocks without shattering the glasshouse you live in.
On the other hand, if you were merely pointing out the way we are..
then nevermind. :) Tis okay to discuss how you feel about "the way
things are", but not to single out people whom are no more guilty than
you in violating your ideaology.
Ryan McGinnis
On 31 Mar 1998 01:08:33 +0800, pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter
Ronaszeki) wrote:
>The only currently active (known) Lightstorm Entertainment projects for
>the near future are PLANET OF THE APES, ANNE RICE'S THE MUMMY, JUDGMENT
>FALLS (aka BROTHER TERMITE), TRUE LIES 2, and SPIDERMAN. And Cameron is
>not personally directing any of these except the latter two.
True Lies *2*? <slaps his forehead>
James Bjorkman
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Ryan McGinnis wrote:
> Hi, James! I'm not sure if you're faulting this guy or not. You
> sound as if you are; if this is the case, then let's be the first to
> admit your (and my) own hypocracy. The very fact that you are sitting
> down at a computer screen, using an internet service, and sending
> messages over a global network of very expensive equipment -- proves
> that you are just as caught up in the "system" as everyone else, and
> by no means are "pure" enough to go around slamming other people for
> not being generous enough. Strip down naked and go live in the
> Brazillian rainforest off of animals you hunt -- *then* you can throw
> rocks without shattering the glasshouse you live in.
Hey, how do you know I'm not naked and livin' in the rainforest - and
using a library terminal? ;) Ok, I'm not (really?) - I'm studying how
to cure people. But hey, this thing has gotten off topic 'cuz the guy I
was responding to ridicules the supposedly radical idea that there could
possibly be better uses for huge sums of money than entertaining his
sorry ass on Saturday night. So, I'm not singling him out - callous,
insensitive folk are a dime a dozen. He's common.
> On the other hand, if you were merely pointing out the way we are..
> then nevermind. :) Tis okay to discuss how you feel about "the way
> things are", but not to single out people whom are no more guilty than
> you in violating your ideaology.
Look, I don't pretend to be a paragon. So, I take your "nevermind" in
good spirit. But I'd rather be someone who at least wants things to get
better and speaks up about it from time to time - than someone who's
wallowing in the supposed glories of overproduced and overhyped films,
crass commercialism, and Panglossian complacency, like this guy. And it's
not just ideology - it's compassion.
But let me do a final news flash for you - I am not perfect! Heehee.
jb
Dan Day
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:42:10 -0500, James Bjorkman <bjor...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>> And you've donated what huge portion of *your* income to charity?
>> Sheesh, the lengths to which some people will go to make ridiculously
>> strained slams against people who enjoyed a particular movie just
>> keeps getting more and more ludicrous.
>> I've spent about $20 on "Titanic" viewings -- I suppose I could
>> have saved the world with that kind of "wasted" money, eh?
>
>Hey, as long as you don't trip over the homeless on the way into the
>theater everything's cool, right? It's cool, it's cool, everybody should
>go spend their bucks on flics and not on something - sniff - noble.
Did I say that? Why, no, I didn't.
Did you leap to ridiculous conclusions? Why, yes, you did.
Could you benefit from a "Hooked on Phonics" course? It couldn't hurt.
James, just what is your problem? I've said nothing that could
even remotely be construed as not caring about the homeless as long
as I don't trip over them.
What I *did* say, and what I still stand by (even more so after your
latest bit of silliness) is that you're *way* over the top when you
claim that spending a few bucks on "Titanic" is necessarily
equivalent to an attitude of, and I quote, "let the homeless and
deprived and real-life victims of the world suffer".
I'm going to put this as nicely as I can, James -- you're being an idiot.
Spending $20 on "Titanic" is not the end of the world as we know it,
and it doesn't prevent me from supporting any of a number of worthy
social causes. So get off that high horse before you fall and hurt
yourself.
Randal Morris
clo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Where's the high cost for "Avatar" coming from then if everything is
> done on a computer? I'd be curious as to how costs of CG effects are
> equipment to make it happen as is. Is that amount for payment of the
> artists?
>
I read/saw somewhere that making Toy Story, which was all CG imaging,
required some serious computer hardware. I may be misquoting, but one
frame of footage from Toy Story required about 800 megabytes of drive
space. One frame is what, 1/16 of a second? Imagine how much physical
storage would be needed to generate a 90 minute film. Compound that
with the processing power and graphic acceleration to animate the CGI,
and you are talking big bucks on hardware alone. With Avatar being
magnitudes more ambitious than Toy Story, I can easily see how the
budget would reach $300 million.
Ranman
Dan Day
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:07:38 -0500, James Bjorkman <bjor...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>But hey, this thing has gotten off topic 'cuz the guy I
>was responding to ridicules the supposedly radical idea that there could
>possibly be better uses for huge sums of money than entertaining his
>sorry ass on Saturday night.
No, James, I was ridiculing your notion that going to see a movie
is the same as an attitude of "let the homeless and deprived and
real-life victims of the world suffer". That was ridiculous the
first time you said it, and it's still ridiculous.
> So, I'm not singling him out - callous,
>insensitive folk are a dime a dozen. He's common.
And you're an idiot. Or at least it's idiotic to take a wild leap
from "you're being silly, James" to the conclusion that I'm
"callous", "insensitive", and "common". Sheesh.
>But I'd rather be someone who at least wants things to get
>better and speaks up about it from time to time - than someone who's
>wallowing in the supposed glories of overproduced and overhyped films,
>crass commercialism, and Panglossian complacency, like this guy.
Oh I am, am I? And you base this lengthy psychological profile on...
what? The fact that I'm not going to accept being told that I'm
letting victims suffer because I spend a few bucks on a movie?
Seek help, James.
>And it's
>not just ideology - it's compassion.
No, it's poor reading comprehension.
Peter Ronaszeki
I can't believe that 'Avatar' thread has become so large...
JAMES CAMERON IS NOT DOING 'AVATAR'!!
He explicitly stated so in an interview less than three months ago.
All of the information quoted in the original thread-starting post was
grossly out of date! Cameron has now said that he is simply not
interested in the project anymore. The referenced Wired article dated
from early/mid 1997, and the secret Digital Domain virtual human test was
February 1997, not 1998! As much as I'd like to have seen this particular
vision of distant worlds... the project is definitely *dead* now.
The only currently active (known) Lightstorm Entertainment projects for
the near future are PLANET OF THE APES, ANNE RICE'S THE MUMMY, JUDGMENT
FALLS (aka BROTHER TERMITE), TRUE LIES 2, and SPIDERMAN. And Cameron is
not personally directing any of these except the latter two.
Naturally, if anyone has even more current information then please feel
free to add/correct anything as appropriate.
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)