criterionforum.org

tenia wrote:

Vic Pardo wrote:Especially if it's over 3 hours, as has been reported.

As no movie over 160 min can be shown in IMAX 3D, it will have to be shorter. 40 minutes have been reported to be cut.

Why is 160 min the maximum run time for IMAX 3D?

Here and here in French.

Here and here in English.

Basically, I still don't know why, but they just can't. I think it's the problem that we have in France, even with regular IMAX : the film reels would probably be too many to hold for a screening. It's sound stupid, but, that's why, in France, with about 80 IMAX theaters, only the one in Disneyland Paris was able to show Watchmen and The Dark Knight in IMAX.

I suppose, as you have to double the reels for a 3D screening, it can only be worse in terms of storage.

Probably your eyes explose after 160 minutes of ~70mm 3D

IMAX 70mm projectors can only hold a certain amount of reels because of the massive size of the film and the effort it takes to get it through the projector. The limit used to be around 50 minutes, which lead to a lot of 45 minute documentaries filling IMAX theaters. Later it was upgraded to 2 hours. Attack of the Clones was released in a cut down version in IMAX that fit that limit.
Finally, this was increased to about 160 minutes.
Considering how much money Fox have thrown at this project, it wouldn't surprise me if they've pushed for IMAX to make the next big upgrade so the projector can hold 3 hours. This would make sense given that supposedly The Dark Knight and Watchmen were the length they were so as to accommodate the limits of an IMAX projector.
Unlike Snyder and Nolan, James Cameron is not somebody who a studio will be able to pressure to shorten his theatrical cut. Those two guys have power in Hollywood, but Cameron is the guy who created Terminator and Titanic. Reportedly, Avatar is the only film the notoriously meddlesome Fox is releasing this year that they haven't had any major creative influence over. It will be as long as Cameron wants. With that in mind, I'm sure that if IMAX projectors can't handle the length of Avatar then we'll see the standard version in regular cinemas and a trimmed version in IMAX.

The budget of Avatar is pretty much unknown (Time reported it as 'in excess of $300 million' before a curious retraction changed the figure to 'in excess of $200 million', while other sources have continued to cite the figure as $300 million. For reasons related to much of the speculation over whether it can possibly break even seen in this thread and Fox being wary of its stock prices, I'm sure the higher figures are accurate and the budget lies anywhere between $300 and $350 million, I'm s have a feeling that the budget lies somewhere between $300 and $350 million.

So this is pretty much the most expensive film ever made (not adjusted for inflation), yet we haven't seen a single bit of promotional material yet. Obviously, most films even half this size begin an advertising campaign at least a year in advance with a teaser trailer. Since they're starting so late, I'm expecting to see a pretty insane, unprecedented marketing-budget blowing blitz in the last few weeks or months leading up to release. With toys, video games, books, and probably some form of advertising everywhere when you leave your house, I'm sure everyone will know about Avatar. The real question is whether it actually appeals enough to break even. It's worth pointing out that Titanic (aka Cameron's Gate) was widely pegged as being the biggest box-office disaster in the history of Hollywood. It's entirely possible that in the future this film will have become a huge success and the next time a massive potential bomb from Cameron or otherwise gets compared to Avatar we'll be pointing at all the factors that made that film an obvious success in the same way we think Titanic was a sure-fire hit, with a love story, action and historical curiosity on its side.

Vic Pardo wrote:Can it sustain itself for over 3 hours? Will the story be enough to grip audiences for all that time? Are there characters the audience will care enough about to stick with it? Are the visuals that dazzling that audiences will truly feel they're collectively entering a new world for the first time? And is that a big enough dazzle to get all my bootleg/download-loving, theater-hating young co-workers (all of whom were film/TV/media/communications majors) into theaters for it?

I'm pretty sure the visuals really are that dazzling. Everyone who's ever seen parts of this film seems to agree that it's the new landmark in film special effects history. The footage from Amsterdam was shown in France today and somebody said that the digital characters make Gollum and Davy Jones look like Tron. This film may have a poor opening weekend, but if the visuals really are that mind boggling then we'll surely see this film continue to make a lot of money over a long period of time thanks to word of mouth. The same thing happened with Titanic, that opened with $28 million and continued to make pretty much the same amount of money every weekend for a few months. As for whether it will get the bootleg loving generation in...that's where 3D comes in.

Story and characters are the big question for this film. I haven't read the original scriptment that leaked around the internet almost a decade ago, but I've heard mixed things. Some found it to be very annoyingly preachy about environmental issues. If that's the case, maybe it's lucky Cameron is releasing the film now, in the Obama and post-An Inconvenient Truth age, and not in 1999 like was once planned. Another review I saw said it was one of the most beautiful scripts the author had ever read, and could easily wind up being the pinnacle of the action genre. By all accounts, though, it's a pretty worn-out tale. Dancers With Wolves/The New World/Fern Gully/Quigley Down Under (I've seen all these compared, so take your pick) with aliens. Pretty familiar characters, also, much as one expects from James Cameron. The plot seems to be pretty high stakes on a massive scale, so it may just be the new Lord of the Rings. James Cameron has called the climax "the mother of all battles".

The big question is whether audiences can be sold a plot that apparently involves an ex-marine lying in a bed in a military base remote controlling a creature that combines his own DNA with that of an alien, and proceeding to fall in love with a female alien.

Yeah, something tells me that the marketing will focus more on the spectacle than the plot on this one.

Cde. wrote:This would make sense given that supposedly The Dark Knight and Watchmen were the length they were so as to accommodate the limits of an IMAX projector.

Not at all. The Dark Knight and Watchmen weren't in 3D. This 160 minutes-limit is for IMAX 3D, not regular IMAX.

Cde. wrote:Unlike Snyder and Nolan, James Cameron is not somebody who a studio will be able to pressure to shorten his theatrical cut. Those two guys have power in Hollywood, but Cameron is the guy who created Terminator and Titanic.

Of course, they won't have. He already know he have to, because of this limit.
So he will himself do several versions, so he will, basically, serve the studios on a silver plate. And they will be able to say 'we didn't interfere, it was his own idea'.

And, I just want to remind you that Aliens, Abyss and Terminator 2 has been cut down for pleasing studios, and that's why we now have an extended DC for both of them.

tenia wrote:

Cde. wrote:This would make sense given that supposedly The Dark Knight and Watchmen were the length they were so as to accommodate the limits of an IMAX projector.

Not at all. The Dark Knight and Watchmen weren't in 3D. This 160 minutes-limit is for IMAX 3D, not regular IMAX.

Actually, it is for all IMAX.

Wikipedia wrote:In the fall of 2002, IMAX and Universal Studios released a new IMAX-format version of the 1995 theatrical film Apollo 13. This release marked the first use of the IMAX proprietary "DMR" (Digital Remastering) process that allowed conventional films to be upconverted into IMAX format. Other theatrically released films would subsequently be rereleased at IMAX venues in versions created using the DMR process. Because of a technical limitation on the size of the film reel, several early DMR releases were edited to conform to a two-hour maximum length. Later releases did not have this limitation; current IMAX platters allow a run length of up to 160 minutes. Some IMAX theaters have also shown conventional films (using conventional projection equipment) as a sideline to the native IMAX presentations.

tenia wrote:

Cde. wrote:Unlike Snyder and Nolan, James Cameron is not somebody who a studio will be able to pressure to shorten his theatrical cut. Those two guys have power in Hollywood, but Cameron is the guy who created Terminator and Titanic.

Of course, they won't have. He already know he have to, because of this limit.
So he will himself do several versions, so he will, basically, serve the studios on a silver plate.

That's what I'm thinking. If the film ends up exceeding the IMAX limit and they don't refine their platters by the time of release, he may end up releasing his original cut in standard cinemas and a shortened version in IMAX.

tenia wrote:And they will be able to say 'we didn't interfere, it was his own idea'.

I don't think this is about Fox trying to distance themselves from a potential bomb, as you seem to be implying. Cameron simply has a massive amount of power over the studios because of his track record. Fox are notorious for their level of meddling with the visions of directors (just ask Alex Proyas or Mathieu Kassovitz) yet they've been reported to have left Cameron well alone on this project. Fox aren't claiming to know better and they've poured an enormous amount of money into this project. I'm sure they're convinced it will be massive.

tenia wrote:And, I just want to remind you that Aliens, Abyss and Terminator 2 has been cut down for pleasing studios, and that's why we now have an extended DC for both of them.

Yes, but this is another time. Terminator 2 did a lot for Cameron's pull with the studios. He got his final cut with True Lies, despite the final film being bloated and overlong, as well as with Titanic, where length was one of the many reasons that the film was predicted as Heaven's Gate for the 90s. If Cameron had final cut then, obviously he does now as the man who directed the highest grossing film of all time.

Cde. wrote:

tenia wrote:

Cde. wrote:This would make sense given that supposedly The Dark Knight and Watchmen were the length they were so as to accommodate the limits of an IMAX projector.

Not at all. The Dark Knight and Watchmen weren't in 3D. This 160 minutes-limit is for IMAX 3D, not regular IMAX.

Actually, it is for all IMAX.

Wikipedia wrote:In the fall of 2002, IMAX and Universal Studios released a new IMAX-format version of the 1995 theatrical film Apollo 13. This release marked the first use of the IMAX proprietary "DMR" (Digital Remastering) process that allowed conventional films to be upconverted into IMAX format. Other theatrically released films would subsequently be rereleased at IMAX venues in versions created using the DMR process. Because of a technical limitation on the size of the film reel, several early DMR releases were edited to conform to a two-hour maximum length. Later releases did not have this limitation; current IMAX platters allow a run length of up to 160 minutes. Some IMAX theaters have also shown conventional films (using conventional projection equipment) as a sideline to the native IMAX presentations.

My bad, then.

Cde. wrote:

tenia wrote:

Cde. wrote:Unlike Snyder and Nolan, James Cameron is not somebody who a studio will be able to pressure to shorten his theatrical cut. Those two guys have power in Hollywood, but Cameron is the guy who created Terminator and Titanic.

Of course, they won't have. He already know he have to, because of this limit.
So he will himself do several versions, so he will, basically, serve the studios on a silver plate.

That's what I'm thinking. If the film ends up exceeding the IMAX limit and they don't refine their platters by the time of release, he may end up releasing his original cut in standard cinemas and a shortened version in IMAX.

He wouldn't be the first one. At the time, Attack Of The Clones had to be shortened for IMAX screening. But indeed that's very helpful for the studios, all these differents versions he wants to do.

Cde. wrote:

tenia wrote:And they will be able to say 'we didn't interfere, it was his own idea'.

I don't think this is about Fox trying to distance themselves from a potential bomb, as you seem to be implying. Cameron simply has a massive amount of power over the studios because of his track record. Fox are notorious for their level of meddling with the visions of directors (just ask Alex Proyas or Mathieu Kassovitz) yet they've been reported to have left Cameron well alone on this project. Fox aren't claiming to know better and they've poured an enormous amount of money into this project. I'm sure they're convinced it will be massive.

They have to be convinced of that. Except with an huge and wide frakking amount of trust to Cameron, I don't think they would have put so much money in it. It would have been more suicidal than the money WB put in Watchmen.

Cde. wrote:Pretty familiar characters... an ex-marine lying in a bed in a military base remote controlling a creature that combines his own DNA with that of an alien, and proceeding to fall in love with a female alien.

Oh, not that old chestnut!

Here's the teaser poster (?) that can now be seen hanging off lampposts on the streets of San Diego.

? looks like the cover of a dimestore paperback...

If the film ends up exceeding the IMAX limit and they don't refine their platters by the time of release, he may end up releasing his original cut in standard cinemas and a shortened version in IMAX.

Given that a number of theaters showing conventional flat & 3D films are converting to digital projection systems isn't the next obvious IMAX upgrade away from film & platters altogether?
(I don't know much about the technical side of IMAX, so I'm asking.)

try "fuckgrade".

Yep.
IMAX have already gone digital and it's a pretty pathetic sight. 2K projection is below the standard of 35mm, let alone 'IMAX', and yet they make no distinction between digital 'IMAX' and the 15 perforation 70mm cinemas. They even charge the same ticket price.

IMAX should never have gone digital before they could project on huge screens with at least 8K resolution. What they are doing right now is a massive scam.

Official site now live.

Trailer coming in 2D, 3D and online on August 21. Selected digital 3D and IMAX cinemas will be screening a 15 minute preview that day, free of charge.

Reports are that it looks like a very polished Pixar film, with a mind-boggling amount of detail.

Trailer.

I think it looks like a really great animated sci-fi film, but I have a feeling few will agree.
Fox may have found its Heaven's Gate.

I'm extremely skeptical, but maybe the proof is in 3D. Everything in this 2D trailer is quite detailed, but still very, very obviously CG, and the design of all the alien creatures is hilarious. It's like watching a preview for Delgo 2.

Who else got tickets to the preview tomorrow? I'll be checking it out at the Pacific Science Center before heading out to "Basterds".

I'm going to the preview tomorrow at 7pm. So far, I really hate the alien designs (both the sentient "N'avi" and the whatevertheyare animals). So much so that when I see the movie I'll probably be rooting for the humans to slash & burn their stupid rainforest to the ground.

Cosmic Bus wrote:I'm extremely skeptical, but maybe the proof is in 3D.

Sounds like it:

Jeffry Wells wrote:The difference between what you're seeing here on your computer monitors and what Avatar looks like in 3-D is that the CG/animated parts aren't really "animation" but a much higher and more visually precise synthesis. There's truly something "extra" about it. The 3-D means a hell of a lot...it really does. You need to see it at one of the special 3D showings on Friday to get what I'm saying.

lol agreed those aliens look appalling

Cde. wrote:Fox may have found its Heaven's Gate.

I was optimistic but Christ, those Blue Cat Creatures are just embarrassing. I can only imagine the derisive laughter this trailer will receive from audiences this weekend. This video game commercial is a total wincefest.

I'm also surprised by the aliens' look. I'd love to hear Cameron's reasoning behind them. I'd also like to know why they're using an MS Papyrus knockoff for the title font.

Cde. wrote:

Jeffry Wells wrote:The difference between what you're seeing here on your computer monitors and what Avatar looks like in 3-D is that the CG/animated parts aren't really "animation" but a much higher and more visually precise synthesis. There's truly something "extra" about it. The 3-D means a hell of a lot...it really does. You need to see it at one of the special 3D showings on Friday to get what I'm saying.

I can buy that.

If nothing else, I predict this film will have an iron-clad fanbase among the furry demographic.

It looks like 65% Aliens and 35% The Abyss. There seemed to be no imagery or situations that did not directly derive from either of those earlier films.