James Cameron to direct first movie in 10 years

[Harryz]

The writer/director will start virtual photography on the sci-fi epic in April, followed by live-action work in August, ahead of a summer 2009 release, Fox Filmed Entertainment said. It will be shot in a new digital 3-D format for release in 3-D.

"I've been the busiest unemployed director in Hollywood," he said. "We're going to blow you to the back wall of the theater in a way you haven't seen for a long time. My goal is to rekindle those amazing mystical moments my generation felt when we first saw '2001: A Space Odyssey,' or the next generation's 'Star Wars.' It took me 10 years to find something hard enough to be interesting."

Neither Cameron nor Fox want to repeat the budget overruns that plagued the $200 million "Titanic," the director said. "We are shooting only 31 days of live action, all onstage. It's controllable. No weather conditions. No water on this one," he said. "When you come back to the table years later to make a movie of a certain scale, you want to make sure you cross all the t's and dot all the i's. We're 2 1/2 years out, and we've already shot 10 minutes of the film. The FX guys are working, the characters are designed, animators are already working."

For "Avatar," Cameron will use performance-capture techniques similar to those used by such films as "Superman Returns" and "King Kong" as well as a real-time virtual camera system, which will blend the actors' performances and CG performances with real sets, miniatures and CG environments. With the virtual camera, the director will be able to look through an eyepiece and see his characters in their virtual world.

-CNN.com

Although its a long wait (Summer 2009), I feel Cameron's really going to push the boundaries in terms of technology/animation.

"I've been the busiest unemployed director in Hollywood," he said. "We're going to blow you to the back wall of the theater in a way you haven't seen for a long time. My goal is to rekindle those amazing mystical moments my generation felt when we first saw '2001: A Space Odyssey,' or the next generation's 'Star Wars.' It took me 10 years to find something hard enough to be interesting."

Thats a really high benchmark hes setting himself there. Can't ****in' wait.

 

[CptStern]

meh he's a good technical director but lacks any sort of soul ..he is no stanley kubrick

he makes a good action flick, that's pretty much it

 

[Crushenator 500]

although i hope not, it sounds as though this film is going to be more about the "ohshit, cg 3d!!!" than it is about the story etc

this post looks like something george lucas would have written about the newest star wars films

here's hoping for the best, but expecting the worst

 

[AmishSlayer]

10 years my ass. He just did Aquaman not that long ago

 

[Asuka]

Sounds interesting.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

meh he's a good technical director but lacks any sort of soul ..he is no stanley kubrick

he makes a good action flick, that's pretty much it

True, only; He makes really good action flicks.

And it's kinda unfair to compare any director to Kubrick. He was one of a kind.

 

[Zephos]

Aliens didn't sacrifice soul for special effects, it combined them quite neatly really.

 

[<RJMC>]

and what you mean by soul?

 

[Zephos]

and what you mean by soul?

Well, I guess it didn't just become "Stick cardboard cut-out characters in special effects movie with lots of big exploshens and stuff". There was a relationship between Ripley and Newt, Hudson D) and a nice mini plot-twist too.

 

[<RJMC>]

Well, I guess it didn't just become "Stick cardboard cut-out characters in special effects movie with lots of big exploshens and stuff". There was a relationship between Ripley and Newt, Hudson D) and a nice mini plot-twist too.

I think I understand

it means that the story is richer?

 

[Aenama]

meh he's a good technical director but lacks any sort of soul ..he is no stanley kubrick

he makes a good action flick, that's pretty much it imo

fixed:dork:

 

[AJ Rimmer]

I think I understand

it means that the story is richer?

To me having soul means just giving a shit about the movie, it's so easy to see which movies the director or actor didn't give a shit about, but Aliens has got soul, and it shows in the acting, the direction and the story. Still, it's a pretty damn personal viewpoint what soul means.

 

[The Monkey]

So... what will it be about?

 

[CptStern]

True, only; He makes really good action flicks.

And it's kinda unfair to compare any director to Kubrick. He was one of a kind.

yes bad comparison however it was Cameron's comparison not mine


and I wouldnt classify his movies as "really good" ...ok terminator yes but after that it was pretty much meh ..aliens was good but paled compared to Ridley scott's Alien ..true lies was just ok (the ending was absolutely over the top rambo stupidity) ..titanic was teenage romance dreck with a huge budget; completely unwatchable imo ...terminator 2 ...too much studio interference ..was good action flick but not great ..Terminator was far far better and still stands as one of the best action films ever made

 

[The Monkey]

True, only; He makes really good action flicks.

And it's kinda unfair to compare any director to Kubrick. He was one of a kind.

Ingmar Bergman is better than Kubrick, but he's a close second.

 

[<RJMC>]

yes bad comparison however it was Cameron's comparison not mine


and I wouldnt classify his movies as "really good" ...ok terminator yes but after that it was pretty much meh ..aliens was good but paled compared to Ridley scott's Alien ..true lies was just ok (the ending was absolutely over the top rambo stupidity) ..titanic was teenage romance dreck with a huge budget; completely unwatchable imo ...terminator 2 ...too much studio interference ..was good action flick but not great ..Terminator was far far better and still stands as one of the best action films ever made

what you mean by studio interference?

 

[CptStern]

ah-nold is the "good guy" ...studio decision ..ah-nold was already big by T2 so they couldnt make him a villian like in the first movie ..terminator's low budget meant they spent more time on character development and plot ..T2 was one action set piece to the next

 

[<RJMC>]

ah-nold is the "good guy" ...studio decision ..ah-nold was already big by T2 so they couldnt make him a villian like in the first movie ..terminator's low budget meant they spent more time on character development and plot ..T2 was one action set piece to the next

how many budget was for the first one?

 

[CrazyHarij]

meh he's a good technical director but lacks any sort of soul ..he is no stanley kubrick

he makes a good action flick, that's pretty much it

terminator

T2 was one action set piece to the next

you're unfairly exaggerating abit. it's got a good story.

kubrick is in a class of his own. james cameron ranks high up together with ridley imho. even though the original alien is the best

 

[CptStern]

cameron is a bit of a hack with a over exaggerated ego ..also happens to be canadian and he can do no wrong in canada ..I wouldnt compare him to Scott who has 2 of the best science fiction movies ever made under his belt (aliens, Bladerunner ...ok he also made Gi Jane) ..cameron is closer to richard donner imo but with some moments of brilliance ..seriously he was much better when he relied on plot than special effects ...it doesnt make him a bad director ..just not great

ya I mentioned Terminator as one of the best action films ever made

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I gotta disagree with ya there stern. Ridley Scott's sci-fi duo is feaking great, but am pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks the non-sci fi that characterizes the vast majority of his output is rather "eh".

Also, Aliens was just as strong - if not stronger - than Alien, probably qualifying as the best sequel of all time, and is easily the greatest action-horror movie that America's produced.
It's still being ripped off by shit like Doom the movie. I mean, not only did Aliens retain and elaborate on Alien's visual style, it also fits perfectly as an extention of the thematic and narrative arc.

Cameron's invaluable skill comes from his ability to create action extravaganzas while retaining a legitimacy that you don't see elsewheres. If T2 isn't the greatest american action movie I've seen, then Aliens is (even if T2 uses the horrible song "bad to the bone", a sin that I normally consider unforgivable, and Aliens uses an (admittedly creepy as hell and narratively vital) dream sequence that doesn't quite reconcile with the utilitarian ultrarealism of the rest).

As for him being no kubrick, that should be self-evident.
But, at the same time, Cameron produced the horrifically underrated Solaris starring george clooney, which is easily the closest we've come to a 2001 since '68. He's got goood taste.

I'm worried about this though, because his latest output has been like Scott's: outside of scifi, he's been rather lost.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

I gotta disagree with ya there stern. Ridley Scott's sci-fi duo is feaking great, but am pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks the non-sci fi that characterizes the vast majority of his output is rather "eh".

Also, Aliens was just as strong - if not stronger - than Alien, probably qualifying as the best sequel of all time, and is easily the greatest action-horror movie that America's produced.
It's still being ripped off by shit like Doom the movie. I mean, not only did Aliens retain and elaborate on Alien's visual style, it also fits perfectly as an extention of the thematic and narrative arc.

Cameron's invaluable skill comes from his ability to create action extravaganzas while retaining a legitimacy that you don't see elsewheres. If T2 isn't the greatest american action movie I've seen, then Aliens is (even if T2 uses the horrible song "bad to the bone", a sin that I normally consider unforgivable, and Aliens uses an (admittedly creepy as hell and narratively vital) dream sequence that doesn't quite reconcile with the utilitarian ultrarealism of the rest).

As for him being no kubrick, that should be self-evident.
But, at the same time, Cameron produced the horrifically underrated Solaris starring george clooney, which is easily the closest we've come to a 2001 since '68. He's got goood taste.

I'm worried about this though, because his latest output has been like Scott's: outside of scifi, he's been rather lost.

*applause*

 

[CptStern]

I gotta disagree with ya there stern. Ridley Scott's sci-fi duo is feaking great, but am pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks the non-sci fi that characterizes the vast majority of his output is rather "eh".

agreed ..I did mention Gi Jane

Also, Aliens was just as strong - if not stronger - than Alien, probably qualifying as the best sequel of all time, and is easily the greatest action-horror movie that America's produced.
It's still being ripped off by shit like Doom the movie. I mean, not only did Aliens retain and elaborate on Alien's visual style, it also fits perfectly as an extention of the thematic and narrative arc.

aliens did the same thing as alien thematically in the sense that it brought the military flick into space (alien = horror movie in space)..and while it was a good film it some of the same sense of the unkown that alien had ..Alien was more science fiction than aliens was

Cameron's invaluable skill comes from his ability to create action extravaganzas while retaining a legitimacy that you don't see elsewheres. If T2 isn't the greatest american action movie I've seen, then Aliens is (even if T2 uses the horrible song "bad to the bone", a sin that I normally consider unforgivable, and Aliens uses an (admittedly creepy as hell and narratively vital) dream sequence that doesn't quite reconcile with the utilitarian ultrarealism of the rest).

well I'm a bit of a tradionalist; I consider the violence inherent in a Peckinpah or a Sam Fuller or a Sergio leone flick as the epitome of an american action films (although I admit the 80's kinda ruined that old school violent realistic film sensibility that was the leading edge of cinema in it's day) ...cameron while heads and shoulders above richard donner stil believes in letting the action set piece drive the scene ...admittedly it's his strongest assest as he really knows how to choreograph an action sequence ..but for my money I prefer the non american school of directing, as they cant afford the luxury of a big budget to carry a weak script ..guys like Jean Luc goddard, Sammo Hung/Jackie Chan, Luc Besson or american icons like John Huston, John Frankenheimer, John Sturges and Howard Hawks

As for him being no kubrick, that should be self-evident.
But, at the same time, Cameron produced the horrifically underrated Solaris starring george clooney, which is easily the closest we've come to a 2001 since '68. He's got goood taste.

I'm worried about this though, because his latest output has been like Scott's: outside of scifi, he's been rather lost.

havent seen solaris but it was panned by critics and fans of the original russian movie: the author believed Solaris was unfilmable so it's not entirely camerons fault ...I like George clooney but havent gotten around to seeing solaris ..I dont think I'd be disappointed as I'm tired of the dreck that hollywood (for the most part; there's always a gem here and there) considers "science fiction" these days and would welcome something different ...however there's always the issue of time which I have little of

 

[Harryz]

But, at the same time, Cameron produced the horrifically underrated Solaris starring george clooney, which is easily the closest we've come to a 2001 since '68. He's got goood taste.

Completely agreed. When I watched Solaris in 2002, I hated it. As my taste in movies matured over the years, I rewatched Solaris in 05-06, and loved it; Soderbergh and Cameron did a great job. Must underrated movie ever IMO. Have yet to see Solyaris though, can't seem to find it anywhere.

 

[Ravioli]

didnt he make the terminator movies?

Sounds cool

 

[The Monkey]

In director James Cameron's original script treatment of Avatar, a man tries to make his way as a miner by combining with an alien during an interplanetary war in which aliens can manifest themselves by possessing human bodies — avatars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(film)

Sounds like a pretty lame plot if you ask me.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(film)

Sounds like a pretty lame plot if you ask me.

Yeah that does sound like a bit of a weak plot. Oh well, there's a good chance it's changed by now.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Stern, please compare more things, it turns me on.