James Cameron's Avatar

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Cameron is planning a rerelease for this summer with a potential 40 minutes added to the film. However since IMAX screens only allow 170 minutes of analog, he may end up only adding 10 minutes.

*cough*GREEDY DOUCHEBAG*cough*

Click for link

[Trent Hoyt 13]

Is Peter Jackson telling him how to make movies even longer?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I wonder if it will crack $3 billion?

[Andy 4,184]

And of course the big question, will there be additional scoring to accompany the new edits?

[Richard Penna 3,742]

I wonder if it will crack $3 billion?

If he's planning Avatar 2 to take place in a fully CG solar system then he'll need the money...

Cameron and the studio are talking about a rerelease because they think they could have brought in even more money if they been able to keep the digital and Imax 3D screens that they gave up when Disney brought out Alice in Wonderland in 3D on March 5.

Is $2.6 bn not enough for the King of the World?

You could take half the world out of poverty for that sort of money

Also, can anyone explain how you make a 3D version of something that was only shot with one camera (unless he actually did film it in 3D)? I've seen simulations where parts of the image are shifted to try to give depth, but you need a different physical angle to get the true effect. Do they manage to do that in the computer?

[Dean1700 4]

I thought it was too long to begin with. I don't see a need to add more scenes to it.

The film is good but personally I didn't think it was THAT good that it needs more scenes added to it. However, I know others will have a different opinion, rightly so, as I would like to see the deleted scenes added back into Titanic yet others would be saying "Why?" themselves, thinking that that was too long as well.

[Richard Penna 3,742]

I certainly don't think audiences would handle 40 mins added into it.

It's the sort of movie I'll probably buy sometime in the future when it's feasible to watch it @ home in real 3D. And by that I mean a real technique such as shuttered. Anaglyph is possibly the most uncomfortable way to watch anything longer than 5 mins, and colorcode, while a bit better (keeps some natural colour) still doesn't work all the time.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Also, can anyone explain how you make a 3D version of something that was only shot with one camera (unless he actually did film it in 3D)? I've seen simulations where parts of the image are shifted to try to give depth, but you need a different physical angle to get the true effect. Do they manage to do that in the computer?

Live-action parts of Avatar were shot on a special 3D camera system. For the motion capture parts everything went into the computer anyway, so you're basically free to let the camera do whatever you want. However, another specially developed camera system was used to shoot these scenes on the stage and use that as a basis (which is particularly handy for handheld scenes). If necessary, the shots could then be slightly tweaked in post. So yes, it was in fact shot in 3D and not made 3D as an afterthought (like the 3D sequences in Superman Returns and the last two Harry Potter films.

[Richard Penna 3,742]

Ah, sorry, I was talking about Titanic Marc, not Avatar (I know that was made from the start in 3D!) - I don't get how something shot 13 years ago in 2D can be suddenly 3D-ified properly - that's what I'd like explained.

[Sandor 798]

Ah, sorry, I was talking about Titanic Marc, not Avatar (I know that was made from the start in 3D!) - I don't get how something shot 13 years ago in 2D can be suddenly 3D-ified properly - that's what I'd like explained.

There have been very succesful conversions made from 2D material to 3D and the technologies are advancing as we speak.

I predict that Titanic will not be the only 2D film that will be rereleased in 3D in the coming years.

[Greg1138 3]

Isn't Lucas planning 3-D original Star Wars Trilogy?

Greg - who will happily go and see an extended Avatar.

[Ollie 1,064]

I don't see a problem with what Cameron is doing.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Unless he's planning on making more money so he could donate it all to charities, then there isn't a problem. There's a problem if he just wants more money for the sake of having more money. He's gonna make another billion with Titanic 3D anyway.

[Ollie 1,064]

Hey the more money a person can make the more power to them.

However it doesn't mean you have to contribute to the pot.

[Romão 2,274]

He should re-release Avatar with less 40 minutes in it, not more

[Wojo 2,453]

I know I won't be seeing it again in any theater, at any length.

[Richard Penna 3,742]

Ah, sorry, I was talking about Titanic Marc, not Avatar (I know that was made from the start in 3D!) - I don't get how something shot 13 years ago in 2D can be suddenly 3D-ified properly - that's what I'd like explained.

There have been very succesful conversions made from 2D material to 3D and the technologies are advancing as we speak.

I predict that Titanic will not be the only 2D film that will be rereleased in 3D in the coming years.

But technically how is it done?

--

I remember Cameron fobbing off that fan wanting an autograph. I have a hard time believing he'd do anything charitable.

[Datameister 2,073]

But technically how is it done?

As I understand it, it's a complex process that involves manually creating CG mockups of the basic shapes of all the objects. Then the actual frames of the film are mapped onto these 3D objects and a second camera angle is created virtually, using bits of the backgrounds and whatnot painted and copied in so you get the parallax right. It's not a perfect process by any means, but I haven't seen it in person, so I can't say how effective I think it is.

[Red 75]

I'm not really interesting in seeing it again.

[Richard Penna 3,742]

But technically how is it done?

As I understand it, it's a complex process that involves manually creating CG mockups of the basic shapes of all the objects. Then the actual frames of the film are mapped onto these 3D objects and a second camera angle is created virtually, using bits of the backgrounds and whatnot painted and copied in so you get the parallax right. It's not a perfect process by any means, but I haven't seen it in person, so I can't say how effective I think it is.

I thought it might be something along those lines, but that surely means you're just making a computerised version of the entire movie. I cant imagine many people having the money, time or patience to do that.

We had a 3D magic special over here last year, and stuff from the early to mid 90s was broadcast in 3D, so either more stuff than I imagined has been filmed 3D-capable or it's a lot easier than we think to convert it.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

But technically how is it done?

They recreate the scene in the computer and map the 2D image across it. From that, they take the new material needed for the second film strip. I think it basically comes down to that, although I can imagine recreating a scene (especially from a movie shot 10 or even 30 years ago) in the computer is a million times more complicated than it sounds.

[Datameister 2,073]

It's indeed very complex to recreate a scene in 3D. Doing still images is difficult enough as it is - but creating a space that closely matches the dimensions and camera angles and motion of a full shot is even more so. Luckily, they can get away with low-detail models a lot of the time, I think - our eyes aren't sensitive enough to parallax to be able to tell if, for example, a person in the background is actually just a flat cutout in the 3D model, or a face in the foreground doesn't have the exact shapes of the eyelids modeled. You still get the 2D images that were photographed.

[Wojo 2,453]

I'm easily amused.

So it baffles me when you watch a documentary where someone has taken a Renaissance painting, and split into layers that move independently as the camera pans across it. As if each person in Rembrandt's Night Watchmen were standing separately in the room, and you can see what's behind them as the camera moves.

Though that illusion of 3D is no more complicated than a side-scroller on the SNES or Genesis, where different portions of background pan at different speeds, creating the illusion of depth.

[Datameister 2,073]

Well, it's a little more complicated than that - you have to fill in the parts of the background that were obstructed. It can be surprisingly difficult to do that without it being obvious. With those old games, the background was being created from scratch, so that wasn't an issue.

[Wojo 2,453]

True, you're right. To do that to a painting, you're essentially turning it into discrete layers, rather than a single layer as we see it.

That's a closer analogy to turning a 2D movie into 3D, except it's frame by frame, however many millions there are per movie.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Unless he's planning on making more money so he could donate it all to charities, then there isn't a problem. There's a problem if he just wants more money for the sake of having more money. He's gonna make another billion with Titanic 3D anyway.

What's the problem?

[crumbs 14,364]

Cameron didn't make $1.8b off Titanic. I don't even think he made $100m, but I could be wrong. Fact is, most of that money went straight back into 20th Century Fox and Paramount's wallets.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

But technically how is it done?

As I understand it, it's a complex process that involves manually creating CG mockups of the basic shapes of all the objects. Then the actual frames of the film are mapped onto these 3D objects and a second camera angle is created virtually, using bits of the backgrounds and whatnot painted and copied in so you get the parallax right. It's not a perfect process by any means, but I haven't seen it in person, so I can't say how effective I think it is.

I thought it might be something along those lines, but that surely means you're just making a computerised version of the entire movie. I cant imagine many people having the money, time or patience to do that.

We had a 3D magic special over here last year, and stuff from the early to mid 90s was broadcast in 3D, so either more stuff than I imagined has been filmed 3D-capable or it's a lot easier than we think to convert it.

A short video on how they did it for HP6

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/video-how-imax-wizards-convert-harry-potter-to-3-d/

[Luke Skywalker 1,804]

Unless he's planning on making more money so he could donate it all to charities, then there isn't a problem. There's a problem if he just wants more money for the sake of having more money. He's gonna make another billion with Titanic 3D anyway.

What's the problem?

The same that seems to apply to George Lucas, i suppose.

A problem or not a problem, depending on your personal POW and liking of the director.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Cameron is planning a rerelease for this summer with a potential 40 minutes added to the film. However since IMAX screens only allow 170 minutes of analog, he may end up only adding 10 minutes.

*cough*GREEDY DOUCHEBAG*cough*

Click for link

LOL at you calling anyone greedy Mr Mooch. Imagine if you had to pay for the internet usage or pay for your vehicle or all your purchases, your rent, your utilities, your food.

[Richard Penna 3,742]

That's not a very fair comparison - a normal person vs someone who's made the two highest grossing films ever. Whose demand for more money seems greedy?

[Datameister 2,073]

LOL at you calling anyone greedy Mr Mooch. Imagine if you had to pay for the internet usage or pay for your vehicle or all your purchases, your rent, your utilities, your food.

Do you really think Mr. Cameron is (or was) having trouble coming up with the cash to pay for these things?

[indy4 155]

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with this. He's putting out a product, if people like it they will continue to buy it.

I personally would rather shoot myself than watch 40 additional minutes to an already overlong film.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Indy4 and I actually agree.

Data, I don't think Cameron is having trouble paying for everything. Koray on the other hand mooches those things. I just find it offensive that someone who works hard for his money and delivers is called a douchebag by a fucking leach.

[Luke Skywalker 1,804]

but releasing an expanded special edition when the threatrical version is still in the cinemas, is abit excessive. other people wait for some annyversary to do this..or the dvd releases...

[Richard Penna 3,742]

A "fucking leach"? "Mooching"? So you suddenly know everything about how we all live and earn money do you Joey?

If people want to see the film again then great. My issue with 'milking' is whether it's being done for pure profit or to reinvest for everyone's technological benefit.

but releasing an expanded special edition when the threatrical version is still in the cinemas, is abit excessive. other people wait for some annyversary to do this..or the dvd releases...

Doesn't it say it's planned for the summer? This one won't still be in cinemas by then.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

A "fucking leach"? "Mooching"? So you suddenly know everything about how we all live and earn money do you Joey?

If people want to see the film again then great. My issue with 'milking' is whether it's being done for pure profit or to reinvest for everyone's technological benefit.

but releasing an expanded special edition when the threatrical version is still in the cinemas, is abit excessive. other people wait for some annyversary to do this..or the dvd releases...

Doesn't it say it's planned for the summer? This one won't still be in cinemas by then.

richuk my files on you are extensive and quite revealing. You really should watch your tone with me. It only takes a few keystrokes before all the money and freedom you have are gone.

Koray is blinds up, he is very open about himself.

Joe, who watches and remembers all.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'm 19, I live my with my parents, so yes I don't pay for bills or utilities or anything like that. Did you Joey, back when you were a teenager? Everything I list here as purchases, whether it be CDs or Blu-rays, I pay for with my own hard=earned money. I try to rely on my parents as little as possible. I pay for my own textbooks, but my job doesn't pay enough for me to afford tuition, so sorry that I have to "leach" from them for that. I pay for other things as well, like clothes and toiletries.

What you said was mean and hurtful. I'm sorry you think that way of me, I certainly don't of you.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Koray, what you said about Cameron was mean and hurtful. You don't know him, just like I don't know you. It's good to know that you seem to appreciate your parents, but you and I have had this same argument before so don't suddenly act hurt.

[Richard Penna 3,742]

Koray, what you said about Cameron was mean and hurtful

And denying a fan the last autograph he needs, who has worked hard to see your movie, is not mean and hurtful? I think Cameron can take a bit of a jab here and there.

What's Koray done that you never did when you were in your late teens?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

posted on a message board, surfed the net, made online purchases, called someone a douchebag, complained how unfair it was for his brothers boss not to let him in the movie for free. I never did any of those things.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

This is not contributing to any of the ongoing discussion in this thread.

Move along, please.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Look, Marc's pretending to moderate.

If the exhibitors want the film then thats good enough. It wont stay at the theatre's long if it doesn't perform.

One thing is it points out that there are not enough 3D screens out there.

[Henry B 50]

3D screens?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Digital projectors is more like it.

[Datameister 2,073]

Silver screens is more like it.

[Wojo 2,453]

For those who want their movies on 3D screens, I recommend going to see a play or other stage production.

Otherwise, we have to wear the Roy Orbison glasses. Even IMAX and OMNIMAX screens need them for 3D.

[Jay 37,465]

I'd welcome a longer version of Avatar, though I'm not sure I need to see it in theaters.

James Cameron's longer versions of Aliens, The Abyss, and Terminator 2 all improved on the theatrical versions, and I enjoy watching them at home.

I'm not sure why he didn't release longer versions of True Lies and Titanic, but I'm glad he's considering doing it again for Avatar.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

3D screens?

you know exactly what I mean HB, course maybe in Mass. you people look at the projector, most people look at the screen.

in LR the Rave has 18 screens, 2 of which are referred to as 3D screens, we know that its the projectors but those 2 screens are dedicated to 3D films.

They hope to expand to 4 3D screens soon and then 8 by years end.

[Datameister 2,073]

Actually, you're somewhat correct, Joey. It does take a special screen to display 3D movies. It requires a literal silver screen - particles of silver in the screen allow the projected images to keep their polarization, which is crucial to making the 3D effect work.