Anybody disappointed that James Cameron didn't win Oscars

[Lisa!]

Oscars aren't given out for reasons you'd think.

When people are recruited to do a movie, part of their contract, if it is slated to be an important movie, is a guarantee of an Oscar nomination. This is part of their job offer before the movie even starts filming.

Now a guarantee of a nomination is not a guarantee of a win, but it's a guarantee that your name is in the running.

The awards are very "political" among the people that can vote.

And yes, I do know this first hand from a dear friend that has won 3 Academy Awards.

Evo, it seems that you have met so many interesting people and have so many cool friends.
I admit that I really feel jealous about that...

 

[Borek]

Evo, it seems that you have met so many interesting people and have so many cool friends.
I admit that I really feel jealous about that...

Just remember you are one of those interesting people Evo knows

 

[BobG]

I am quite gratified that a small-grossing indie film garnered a Best Director award for Bigelow. She is a classy woman, and when baited, she didn't crow over besting Cameron (ex-husband). I hope Linda Hamilton (another Cameron ex-wife) and Bigelow get together for a nice BBQ and drinks to celebrate.

She was married to him for two years, twenty years ago. I would hope they were over the divorce by now.

 

[DanP]

I'd put Avatar in the same category as Ben-Hur. It's a great movie today, but will it still be a great movie 20 years from now when people aren't amazed by the 3-D effects anymore?

I find Ben Hur good even today. ('59 version). Meaning, I've watched it with pleasure
when it had a re-run on one of our TV channels.

Maybe Avatar won't be a great movie in 20 years. But surely as hell The Hurt Locker wasn't a good movie today, so who cares about it 20 years from now.

 

[DanP]

Like I said in an earlier post, if we could measure the quality of art in dollars, Van Gogh's paintings were crap when he painted them, and priceless today. Apart from the Mona Lisa, I can't think of a single painting that would bring more money at auction than Vincent's most popular works.

Art (as the whole craft) / art perception evolves/changes. What IS crap one day may become a treasure in 50 years.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I think I rate "Avatar" right up there with "Tron" and "The Last Starfighter", and I'm sure it will be remembered similarly in the future for its groundbreaking special effects.

 

[Lisa!]

Just remember you are one of those interesting people Evo knows

Very nice of you!
Now I think of it, I also have so many cool freinds here

 

[Brian_C]

Animation/special effects

Definitely the Lord of the Rings Series. According to IMDB, your friend is either Jim Rygiel or Randall William Cook.

 

[Huckleberry]

What did he do that was so revolutionary? We've been watching novelty 3-D films since the 1950s.

Cameron didn't use the same format that has been around 50 years to make Avatar. He created a new process for filming 3D movies that takes advantage of modern technology. Then he went about popularizing it by encouraging other directors to use the new format. It's a different animal, barely comparable to the old 3D films. Otherwise, Avatar didn't bring anything new or great to the table.

Avatar won 3 Oscars: Cinematography, art direction, and special effects. Those are exactly the ones it deserved, of course: "fastest," "shiniest," and "most expensive."

And man, that was one shiny movie.

Yup, it got all the Oscars it deserved, though it did win Best Motion Picture at the Golden Globes. Cameron also won the Golden Globe for Best Director for Avatar. I haven't seen the other films in those categories, but I guess it wasn't a stellar year for movie scripts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cameron didn't use the same format that has been around 50 years to make Avatar. He created a new process for filming 3D movies that takes advantage of modern technology. Then he went about popularizing it by encouraging other directors to use the new format. It's a different animal, barely comparable to the old 3D films. Otherwise, Avatar didn't bring anything new or great to the table.

I wouldn't say "barely comparable" based on the results. The old 3D stuff thrilled the audiences with stuff coming out of the screen just as this does. The problem with 3D has never been the film or video technology; it's the glasses.

... or could it be that the relative cost of making the movie has changed? Is that what makes this siginficant - that it is siginficantly less expensive technology - or was this another big-budget extravaganza that demands the popularity produced by novelty, in order to turn a profit?

 

[waht]

I wouldn't say "barely comparable" based on the results. The old 3D stuff thrilled the audiences with stuff coming out of the screen just as this does. The problem with 3D has never been the film or video technology; it's the glasses.

... or could it be that the relative cost of making the movie has changed? Is that what makes this siginficant - that it is siginficantly less expensive technology - or was this another big-budget extravaganza that demands the popularity produced by novelty, in order to turn a profit?

The 3D IMAX option is just a bonus. The quality of the movie is great in 2D.

What is new is a motion capture set. Every actor wears a suit loaded with sensors, and a camera that captures their tiniest muscle contraction on the face. This data is fed live to a supercomputer farm which recreates the characters in the computer.

What is so cool about it is that the director can walk around the set with a screen that shows a 3D rendering of the world at a certain position and orientation in the set. The direction can see all characters rendered in 3D live, and as a result can instruct the actors how to act right on the spot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2_vB7zx_SQ&feature=related

 

[DaveC426913]

I wouldn't say "barely comparable" based on the results. The old 3D stuff thrilled the audiences with stuff coming out of the screen just as this does. The problem with 3D has never been the film or video technology; it's the glasses.

I disagree. This did not have things coming out of the screen so much as it had things going into the screen - the film was greatly enhanced by its dramatic depth of field.

 

[Borek]

I disagree. This did not have things coming out of the screen so much as it had things going into the screen - the film was greatly enhanced by its dramatic depth of field.

I disagree. There were moments (I think in the forest) when I have literallly felt as if the branches where sticking out of the screen. Not to the point of dodging them, but close.

 

[GeorginaS]

When I saw Up! in 3D, a bird flew past my head and I ducked.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Deicider]

its was fun seeing Camerons ex-wife (director of Hurt Locker) taking the oscars from him.

 

[Huckleberry]

I wouldn't say "barely comparable" based on the results. The old 3D stuff thrilled the audiences with stuff coming out of the screen just as this does. The problem with 3D has never been the film or video technology; it's the glasses.

... or could it be that the relative cost of making the movie has changed? Is that what makes this siginficant - that it is siginficantly less expensive technology - or was this another big-budget extravaganza that demands the popularity produced by novelty, in order to turn a profit?

Cameron couldn't film Avatar when he wrote the script for the movie. The technology for what he wanted to do didn't yet exist. It was designed specifically for this movie.

Check out how the cameras capture the motion and expressions of the actors and that information is used to make their CGI counterparts. (starts at about 3min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6JXUoWeZ7Q&feature=related

The Fusion 3D digital cameras designed by Vince Pace that were used for Avatar are not the same as old film cameras. This shows a little of the cameras unique operation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZmJ8A1Wl6U&feature=related

This doesn't include other details of the visual effects that were excellent in Avatar, like the physical interaction of human and CGI Na'Vi actors. I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D over the weekend. At a few points there is a human actor riding a CGI horse. There is some poorly done editing when they move together. Avatar looked seemless to me.

There aren't any red and blue glasses. There is no need to be directly in front of the screen. I felt hardly any eye strain and didn't get a headache. I didn't even like old 3D movies. They were uncomfortable to watch and I could never forget I was watching 3D. The new 3D movies feel like I'm watching something on the other side of a window and it might jump through any moment. It's revolutionary 3D because it's not just a cool gimmick any more. I can watch a 3D movie and not even realize I'm watching a movie in 3D. The visual response is automatic rather than intentional.

They aren't cheaper though. Here's the visual effects equipment used for Avatar according to Wiki.

The lead visual effects company was Weta Digital in Wellington, New Zealand, at one point employing 900 people to work on the film[97]. To render Avatar, Weta used a 10,000 sq ft (930 m2) server farm making use of 4,000 Hewlett-Packard servers with 35,000 processor cores.[98] The render farm occupies the 193rd to 197th spots in the TOP500 list of the world's most powerful supercomputers. Creating the Na'vi characters and the virtual world of Pandora required over a petabyte of digital storage,[99] and each minute of the final footage for Avatar occupies 17.28 gigabytes of storage.[100] To help finish preparing the special effects sequences on time, a number of other companies were brought on board, including Industrial Light & Magic, which worked alongside Weta Digital to create the battle sequences. ILM was responsible for the visual effects for many of the film's specialized vehicles and devised a new way to make CGI explosions.[101] Joe Letteri was the film's visual effects general supervisor.[102]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film )

And glasses may not be a problem for much longer either.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/190937/3d_imageswithout_glasses.html
http://www.wipeout44.com/video/3d/real_3d_wii.asp

 

[Tribulus]

I wish that the whole 3d thing passes again as it did once before. I find that it takes a lot away more than it gives (lack of color detail vs 3d).

 

[DanP]

I wish that the whole 3d thing passes again as it did once before. I find that it takes a lot away more than it gives (lack of color detail vs 3d).

You see the glass half empty glass. I personally hope that promising entertainment technologies will constantly improve, and add more and more immersion. It will get even better in time. Why abandon it ?