SDCC: Peter Jackson, James Cameron Fight For Cinema's Future
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Fandom, Exhibition, Comic/Superhero/Geek, ComicCon

On Friday night at 7pm, after most fanboys had already fulfilled their quotient of nerdgasms and geek-freakouts, Peter Jackson and James Cameron appeared together at a panel hosted by Entertainment Weekly entitled "The Visionaries." Rather than just talking about their current projects, however, the two iconic filmmakers offered a sort of State of the Cinematic Union, addressing problems and challenges they face, even as they addressed a few rumors about what their respective futures hold.
The most important of their observations and revelations:
• James Cameron is currently in the process of converting Titanic to 3-D. Unfortunately, Jackson has thus far faced opposition from Warner Brothers about doing the same with the Lord of the Rings films, although Cameron suggested that it would be films like those that would grease the wheels for further retrofits and 3-D releases was Jackson lucky enough to get to do it.
• Both filmmakers feel strongly about the need to speed up the frame rate of shooting and projection, which they claim stabilizes and clarifies film images with a minimum of costs for updating current technology. They suggested that 60 frames a second, which is the rate that Cameron has used with the new cameras he pioneered for filming Avatar, is a current ideal.
• Cameron indicated that Battle Angel Alita, a project he circled a few years ago, might be next on his slate after the release of Avatar. But he added, "you don't ask a woman if she wants to have more kids when she's crowning."
• Jackson said that The Lovely Bones trailer will be available on Apple on August 6th, and debut in theaters and elsewhere August 7th.
• Jackson revealed that he is currently at work on a ride for Universal to replace the King Kong attraction that burned down during a backlot fire a few years ago. He said it will feature 3-D, offer a 360 degree view of Skull Island, and put the passengers of Universal's iconic trams in the middle of a fight between Kong and the T-Rexes, complete with spraying goo and dinosaur breath.
• Cameron said that the world of Avatar was the idea that had been lurking for so long, not the characters or even the developing technology. As such, he feels comfortable that if they're lucky enough for the first film to be a success, he could conceivably put together a sequel also set in that world.
• Jackson's work on Tintin is still in early stages but he insists that the films are being made by people who are true Tintin fans. He also said that the design of the film was intended to be as true to creator Herge's original designs as possible but with added textures. Otherwise, he indicated that they might as well just do a live-action version, which neither he nor Steven Spielberg (who is directing the first film) wanted.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-27-2009 @ 4:40PM
Prhime said...
"you don't ask a woman if she wants to have more kids when she's crowning." one of the best replies I have seen to a question that always gets asked albeit in various ways.
Reply
7-27-2009 @ 4:48PM
shadowracer said...
LOTR in 3D is a dumbass idea. King Kong in 3D makes more sense. Don't ask me why.
Not every movie will look better in 3D. The way those two are championing it will diminish the art of cinema.
Something akin to the way cinemscope is used now. Judd Apatow films and RomComs do not need to be filmed in 2.40:1, which should be used for epics and other films which take advantage of the AR.
Let Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cauron fight for Cinema's future and the rest of the great Filmakers that have made masterpieces in the past 10+ years. It's time for the changing of the guard. It can't be too long before Spielberg and/or Cameron will retire.
Fingers crossed QT launches some sort of counter to the 3D craze. Bottom line = 3D can't be applied to just anything.
Reply
7-27-2009 @ 4:59PM
vegimorph said...
I can understand how digital filmmaking can make a picture clearer and brighter and stuff and I can understand how computers can greatly improve special effects and visual storytelling but where does turning every other film to 3-D come in? I mean 3-D movies are fun to watch but usually in an amusement park but why are they converting every other film to 3-D? Isn't 3-D basically just the figures coming out of the screen? If its just that, big whoop.
Wearing the 3-D glasses every time is annoying and the coming out of the screen thing wears thin. If its more than that, can someone please explan to me what it is? I don't mean to sound like a jerk, I'm just confused as to why 3-D is so popular
Reply
7-27-2009 @ 5:15PM
Tom said...
I like the immersive experience of 3D. It doesn't need to be an action film with things flying out of the screen. Of course it's not necessary... but it's interesting and brings you deeper into the film's world. As for the glasses, there are ways developed that no longer require glasses. Companies are currently at work making these methods affordable.
8-17-2009 @ 5:57PM
Sandra Birnhak said...
Ken: Interesting interview. Sandra
Reply