Slashdot Mirror
Titanic Director to Make Battle Angel Movie
thelizman writes "Director James Cameron, who gave us the Terminator movies (I, II, III) , Aliens, The Abyss, and brought Dark Angel to the small screen will give us a new treat. According to AP, Cameron will direct a live action + cgi movie based on the Battle Angel Alita (GUNNM) book series. Slated for release in 2005-06, the movie will be available in 3D as well as 2D versions. Cameron will be using 3D technology developed for IMAX films to deliver the 3D versions (and on IMAX maybe?). Another twist is that the lead character will be CG, while other roles will be filled by live actors." Update: 11/25 22:42 GMT by T : Sunny Dubey writes "Terminator 3 was *not* directed by James Cameron. It was directed by Jonathan Mostow."
The Abyss was my favorite movie for a long time. I absolutely loved it. And the Aliens were visually stunning (if lacking in story). But, what is this Battle Angel? And is it worth the Cameron touch?
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
Funny how not even the Wikipedia article mentions what this series is actually about. I'm getting the feeling, from the write-up, that the movie is going to be more technophilia a la Final Fantasy (which, coincidentally enough, is just a re-hash of Cameron's Aliens with some Gaia / New Age junk thrown in to add spice). Isn't there already a live-action Evangelion in the works? I like anime well enough, but does the world really need a spate of live-action adaptations? Have we learned nothing from Fist of the North Star and The Guyver?
Also, speaking of CG -- I have nothing against CG in general, but the idea of a CG main character fills me with a vague boredom and distaste rather than excitement. As a gimmick, it already feels played out. Gosh, MORE distracting computer graphics in a movie, you say? More actors making wooden deliveries to green screens and teamsters waving flags for them to react to? Sign me up!
I would rather see CG used in the environment where it really thrives -- animated films. I don't mean that CG should try to emulate reality as closely as possible -- you just end up with The Uncanny Valley, and the animation will displease people without them ever being able to put a finger on why (it will just look "bad").
I think CG has tremendous potential to show us things that can't be emulated in real life -- and make it look better than it ever has before. I don't think re-hashing an anime title is really going to fit that particular bill. Instead, we see people attempting to make CG look as realistic as possible, which has the effect of making it both "unrealistic" (i.e. distinguishable from reality), and kind of banal. Why would I want to see an animated Jonny Quest jumping onto the back of a moving train, when I can see Jackie Chan do it for real?
A lot of animated shows have added CG to the traditional forms of animation, and seen some tremendous success. I'd rather see the technology go in that direction.
He hasn't done anything interesting in ten years, has he?
I don't trust Hollywood anymore. Even if the director made some quality action movies in the 80s, I'm still expecting this butchered.
It is important to note that someone close to James Cameron has said he will be involved with T4 to some capacity.
I highly recommend picking up an issue of this month's Wired magazine, which hit the shelves the other day. It's guest-edited by James Cameron, and focuses on exploration, from undersea to subterranean to outer space. There's an interview with Burt Rutan, and also an interview with a renown cave explorer/inventor who's designing a submarine to search for life on Europa.
...
Here's an excerpt from Cameron's intro piece, which I found to be quite powerful:
Space is a vacuum. There is, by definition, nothing there. When we talk about exploring space, we really mean exploring the objects careening around in space - planets, moons, the occasional comet. So space is a hurdle, an ocean that must be crossed to reach a destination. Unfortunately, for three-quarters of the space age it has been treated as a destination in and of itself.
The last time humans crossed space to a destination was the Apollo 17 mission in 1972. In the 32 years since, no man has seen, with his own eyes, Earth as that beautiful, solitary blue sphere, and - reality check - no woman has ever seen it at all. We've been only to low Earth orbit since 1972, and from that altitude of 220 miles, looking at the 7,900-mile-diameter Earth is like peering at a basketball with your cheek pressed against it. Yes, you'll see curvature, but you're not seeing the whole thing. We've spent 32 years "exploring space" in low Earth orbit. Exploring nothing. To stay in orbit you have to go 17,000 mph, or Mach 25. So we've spent three decades going nowhere fast.
It's taken people a long time to wake up to this fact, but we finally have. Now Exploration with a capital E is in the air again, in what will hopefully become some kind of renaissance. Eleven billion hits to NASA's Web site during the Spirit and Opportunity rovers' exploration of Mars is an astounding groundswell of support. NASA is still blinking in surprise, trying to figure out why people love the rovers yet care less about the construction of the International Space Station than a new interchange outside Cleveland. It is only now sinking in that one is exploration and the other is, well construction.
If the next step is to send humans to Mars, then we must reexamine our culture of averting risk and assigning blame. We don't need any miracle breakthroughs in technology. The techniques are well understood. Sure, it takes money, but distributed over time it doesn't require any more than we're spending now. What is lacking is the will, the mandate, and the sense of purpose.
Something interesting is happening right now as you're reading this. NASA is scrambling, under presidential orders, to prepare for a renewed vision of human exploration beyond Earth. They've generated a plan, and it's a good one. I've sat on the NASA Advisory Council for the past 18 months, which is surely the most interesting period since the Apollo days. NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe has fundamentally reorganized the agency. NASA is figuring out post-shuttle solutions to get people into orbit, how to do the heavy lifting to get big payloads (like interplanetary vehicles) up there, and all the other critical tasks to create human exploration space-systems architecture.
The public understandably asks how this will be paid for. The answer comes with some good news and some bad. The bad news is that space shuttle operations and space station construction and operations (in other words, current human spaceflight) is sucking up about $8 billion of NASA's $15 billion annual budget. The good news is that when the shuttle is retired (2010) and the space station completes its mission (2014), $8 billion a year will be freed up without adding a dime to the NASA budget. Over time, one funding wedge tapers, and the other widens. From 2014 to 2024, you've got a cool $80 bil to send folks to Mars.
The problem is that government projects are subject
There are a few cool scenes in Titanic - watching the robot sift through the wreakage, the computer simulation of the sinking, and the shots of the engine room. and boilers. CG scenes of the ship hitting the iceberg, breaking up and sinking was interesting too.
I find victorian era technology facinating - it would have been awesome to see and hear the ship's four story high reciprocating steam engine with their immense pistons chugging away at top speed.
At the risk of being modded offtopic, a set of Titanic deck plans are available on-line at: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/deckplans/
My rights don't need management.
Your head a splode
IIRC, Cameron said he didn't think T3 should be made (hence he refused to direct it). He believed that Terminator 2 completed the Terminator story as he wanted to tell it.
Indeed, you can see in the wildly different styles of direction in T1/T2 vs T3 that James Cameron had no part in T3's production.
Also of note is that Arnie was refusing to play the Terminator again in T3 unless Cameron was the director. Ultimately, Cameron told Arnie to do the film but make sure he got an extortionate ammount of money for doing so.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
From what I remember of T2 and T3 when the Governator talks about the future, wholesale human slaughter did not begin right away. It took a few years for Skynet to build enough Terminators to wage full scale war against humanity. I think T4 will cover the time between Judgment Day and the war. That would make the most sense. Of course, after T3, does it need to make sense? Apparently not, after Johnathan Mostow introduced a few paradoxes into the story line. Oh well. As long as it is violent it will sell.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
If you have a girlfriend who finds Titanic to be the ultimate love story, you've got one committed to cheating on you as soon as she finds someone new (specifically, someone interesting because they're new, and explaining that its "for love."
Someone like that is more likely to be a Microsoft girl - nice looking user interfaces, but not very dependable. Go get another.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Ironic. Daredevil was supposed to be one of the least self-absorbed characters in the Marvel universe - one who was always thinking of others. He made peace with his problem, and used it to help people - not because he was compelled like Batman, but simply because he was a good person. Affleck did a worse job than you thought, apparently, if he seemed self-absorbed.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
"Battle Angel is a very real possibility and that's the film that I fully intend to direct, that I will direct - the issue is will it be the next film, or will it be the one after the next film? That's really all there is to it at this point. We've done a tremendous amount of design for the film, we're fine-tuning the script, it's just a matter of time."
Guess the question about when he's going to make it has now been answered. Anyway...
"What I like about it is that when we first meet Alita she's very young, she's sort of pre-pubescent in a way, and she actually matures throughout the story. I like that, that the development of her mind actually affects her physicality. There's a lot of really great things about it, and there's a lot of things - whether the artist really intended it or not - that I read into it, and so I think it'll be a good fusion of what Kashiro created and how I would do things."
Will it be faithful to the original manga?
"No, I don't really think that's possible. Not only is it not possible, it's not desirable. I think it's not possible because the manga is very discordant - it's not internally consistent, meaning sometimes she looks like one thing and has one set of abilities, and at the whim of Kashiro he'll go off on a different tangent. It needs to be fused and focused and given a centralised storyline. But the character will be very, very true to Alita as she is in the manga."
Motorball?
"Motorball might find its way into the second film - I definitely want to do more than one film. I want to create a world and a character that can go through at least one more film, possibly more. And that's not just for the usual financial reasons, it's just that I think there's a possibility for a real mythology here, so I feel that this is a good canvas to do something big that's got more scope."
You must think in Russian.