
En los Estados Unidos recaudó 41 millones de dólares en un sólo día (se estrenó el viernes) y se calcula que rondaría los 110 millones en el fin de semana.

| 1 | ALICIA EN EL PAIS DE LAS MARAVILLAS | ALICE IN WONDERLAND | 48,537 | 48,537 | 151 (91) |
| 2 | AL FILO DE LA OSCURIDAD | EDGE OF DARKNESS | 6,101 | 98,830 | 114 (67) |
| 3 | AVATAR | AVATAR | 3,690 | 2,665,353 | 558 (184) |

LOS ANGELES — Will it soon be time for 20th Century Fox’s “Avatar” to surrender the 3-D stage? Walt Disney Studios certainly thinks so.
“Alice in Wonderland,” a 3-D adaptation from Tim Burton and Disney, is set to replace “Avatar” in all commercial Imax theaters and in many multiplexes that operate 3-D screens on March 5.
The problem is that “Avatar” is still playing like gangbusters — especially in 3-D theaters, which charge premium prices for tickets and have been instrumental in making “Avatar” a box office phenomenon — and exhibitors are grumbling at having to let go of a sure winner to pick up an uncertain new prospect.
Fox executives are now quietly talking about fighting to hold some of the big-format screens for “Avatar,” perhaps by giving more favorable financial terms to theater owners who keep it. Disney is set to take over the 3-D real estate just two days before the Academy Awards, a situation that would make it hard for “Avatar” — a front-runner for best picture — to get the traditional Oscar box office bump.
A similar showdown is brewing between, on the one side, DreamWorks Animation and Paramount Pictures, which plan to release the animated “How to Train Your Dragon” in 3-D on March 26, and, on the other side, Warner Brothers. Warner has just decided to convert its sword-and-sandals fantasy “Clash of the Titans” to a 3-D format and release it on April 2. “How to Train Your Dragon” will have to make do with fewer 3-D seats, which sell for a $3 to $5 premium.
The 3-D bottleneck is likely to grow worse. Michael Lewis, the chief executive of RealD, which equips theaters that account for about 90 percent of 3D screens in the United States, said about 60 films were set for 3-D release over the next three years.
“As audiences experience more 3-D movies, scheduling challenges for theater owners and studios will naturally increase while there is a temporary shortfall of 3-D screens,” Chuck Viane, Disney’s president for distribution, said in a statement. Another Disney executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, said the studio did not see “Avatar” as a problem because early interest in “Alice in Wonderland” was quite strong.
“It will beautifully draft off of ‘Avatar,’ ” the executive said.
Fox, Imax and DreamWorks Animation declined to comment. Spokesmen for the Cinemark and AMC theater chains, which operate 3-D screens, did not return telephone calls. A spokesman for the Regal chain had no comment.
Imax long ago promised almost all of its 179 domestic and 82 foreign theaters to Disney for the opening of “Alice in Wonderland,” which stars Johnny Depp. At the time, few suspected that “Avatar” would still be racking up ticket sales that have made it the best-selling film in history, with more than $1.9 billion at the worldwide box office so far. In fact, the flagship Imax theaters in places like the AMC Loews Lincoln Square in Manhattan are still selling out weekend shows with no sign of a slowdown. More than 70 percent of ticket revenue for “Avatar” has come from 3-D.
The owners of Imax’s commercial theaters appear to be bound by their commitment to Disney — although contracts have often meant less in the world of movie exhibition than pragmatic decisions based on the leverage of the players involved. Under pressure from Fox, for instance, Imax might well ask Disney to permit the large-screen theaters to hang onto “Avatar” for midnight screenings during the three-week run promised to “Alice in Wonderland,” according to one executive who was briefed on the situation but spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid further conflict. Another possibility might be to re-release “Avatar” in the large-screen format sometime later this year.
Disney could have a harder time maintaining its anticipated number of 3-D screens that are not Imax. Decisions about what movies play on those screens are generally made on the local or regional level, based on how well tickets are selling. Given the staying power of “Avatar,” theater owners are speculating that it could monopolize 3-D screens into April. The number of tickets sold for “Avatar” is thus far about the same as that for “Titanic” over the same length of time. “Titanic” ran for nine months after its release in 1997.
The collisions among movie studios for 3-D theaters stems from a shortage of screens equipped with the technology. By year’s end the number of 3-D screens in the United States will have expanded to about 5,100, according to the National Association of Theater Owners. But that is still too few to accommodate dozens of big-budget movies released in the format. Mr. Lewis said his company had contracts to install an additional 5,000 screens worldwide. But much of the expansion, he said, has been waiting for a loosening of capital markets.
Eventually, multiplexes that now operate one or two 3-D screens will have five or six. “By the end of the year, I think it’s going to be a nonissue,” Mr. Lewis said of the shortage.
1. 战争的第一要素是人,学习纳美人,要有必胜信念,不惧怕任何先进武器。
2. 纳美人的权力世袭制证明民主制度没有宇宙普适性。
3. 纳美人的集体所有制战胜了资本主义制度。
4. 关键岗位选人一定要把忠诚放在第一位,人类军队败就败在有个思想动摇的杰克。
5. 人类军队没有紧密团结在以迈尔斯指挥官为核心的领导层周围,出现了分裂。团结是铁,团结是钢。
6. 格蕾丝博士证明了知识分子的软弱性,不能过于相信。
7. 我国的拆迁相对来说,算是文明的,没有出动军队。
8. 对看第二遍的观众征收20%奢侈税。
9. 加大科研投入,启动省部级以上官员的阿凡达计划,需要强调指出的是:有益的唯心主义都是唯物主义。
10. 潘多拉星球是我国领土不可分割的一部分。
1. The first element of any war is human. Learn from the Na’vi, have a winning spirit, and don’t be afraid of any advanced weapons.
2. The Na’vi’s system of hereditary rule proves that democracy is not universally applicable.
3. Na’vi’s collectivism has won over capitalism.
4. Loyalty has to be put in the number place in any appointment of key personnel. Defeat of the human race is due to the irresolute thinking of Jake.
5. The human race’s army has not united resolutely under the leadership of Colonel Miles Quaritch, as a result there is internal struggle. Unity is iron, unity is steel!
6. Dr. Grace Augustine shows the weaknesses of intellectuals, which are not to be trusted.
7. Forced demolition in China is relatively civilized; we haven’t used the army yet.
8. Anyone watching Avatar for the second time will be subject to 20% luxury tax.
9. Increase our effort in research & development. Start Avatar programs in provincial / ministerial levels or above. What we need to emphasize is: useful idealism is materialism.
10. Planet Pandora is an inseparable part of our motherland.

The pressures on Cameron are extreme, never mind that he has brought them on himself. His movies are among the most expensive ever made. “Terminator 2” was the first film to cost a hundred million dollars, “Titanic” the first to exceed two hundred million. But victory is sweeter after a close brush with defeat. “Terminator 2” earned five hundred and nineteen million around the world, and “Titanic,” which came out in 1997, still holds the record for global box-office: $1.8 billion.
Cameron is fifty-five. It has been twelve years since he has made a feature film; “Avatar,” his new movie, comes out on December 18th and will have cost more than two hundred and thirty million dollars by the time it’s done. He started working on it full time four years ago, from a script he wrote in 1994. “Avatar” will be the first big-budget action blockbuster in 3-D; Cameron shot it using camera systems that he developed himself. He is a pioneer of special effects: the undulating water column of “The Abyss” and the liquid-silver man of “Terminator 2” helped to inspire the digital revolution that has transformed moviemaking in the past two decades. The digital elements of “Avatar,” he claims, are so believable that, even when they exist alongside human actors, the audience will lose track of what is real and what is not. “This film integrates my life’s achievements,” he told me. “It’s the most complicated stuff anyone’s ever done.” Another time, he said, “If you set your goals ridiculously high and it’s a failure, you will fail above everyone else’s success.”
George Lucas popularized space opera; Steven Spielberg has perfected awe. Cameron’s movies, soaked in sweat and blood and scorched by apocalyptic flames, have romance at their molten cores. Some of his most memorable characters—Sarah Connor, the heroine of the “Terminator” movies; Ellen Ripley, of “Aliens”—are mothers. The writing is a genre of its own: “tech-noir,” Cameron called it after “Terminator”; his late-period style is more like gear-head schmaltz. “IN THE BLACKNESS we hear the lonely ping of a bottom sonar,” the beginning of his treatment for “Titanic” reads. “Then two faint lights appear, close together . . . growing brighter. They each resolve into clusters of lights, which are soon revealed to be two DEEP SUBMERSIBLES, falling toward us. We are somewhere in the ocean deep, looking up at two subs freefalling like express elevators. . . . Soon they are fireflies, then stars. Then gone.” Spielberg says, “He gets a lot of points for being a techno-brat, but he is a very emotional storyteller.”
“With ‘Avatar,’ I thought, Forget all these chick flicks and do a classic guys’ adventure movie, something in the Edgar Rice Burroughs mold, like John Carter of Mars—a soldier goes to Mars,” Cameron told me. The hero of “Avatar,” Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), is a paraplegic ex-marine who travels to Pandora, a moon in the Alpha Centauri star system, where there is a human colony. Humans can’t breathe the air on Pandora; Jake lies in a casket-like vessel, while his consciousness, projected into an “avatar”—Vishnu-blue and nine feet tall, like the native population, the Na’vi—explores Pandora’s rich interior. It is a fantasy about fantasy, about the experience of sitting inert in the dark while your mind enters another world. Set roughly a hundred and twenty-five years in the future, “Avatar” is, like most speculative science fiction, a cautionary tale. Humans have turned Earth into a wasteland and, in their pursuit of a precious superconductor called Unobtanium, are beginning to do the same to Pandora. Jake, through his avatar, falls in love with a Na’vi princess, who teaches him to live in harmony with nature, and then he leads her people in an insurrection against the colonists. “Of course, the whole movie ends up being about women, how guys relate to their lovers, mothers—there’s a large female presence,” Cameron said. “I try to do my testosterone movie and it’s a chick flick. That’s how it is for me.” This summer, addressing an auditorium filled with thousands of teen-age boys at Comic-Con, in San Diego—an annual convention of science-fiction, action-adventure, and fantasy fans—he made his identification with the fair sex complete. When someone in the audience asked about his next movie, he replied, “You know, it’s not a great time to ask a woman if she wants to have other kids when she’s crowning.”
Cameron behaves as if he were the embattled protagonist of one of his own films—an ordinary Joe beaten on the anvil of extraordinary trials. “The words ‘No’ and ‘That’s impossible’ and phrases like ‘That can’t be done’—that’s the stuff that gives him an erection,” the actor Bill Paxton, who has worked with Cameron since the early eighties, says. Cameron reserves a special quotient of his anger for suits who get in his way. “Tell your friend he’s getting fucked in the ass, and if he would stop squirming it wouldn’t hurt so much” was the message he once told a Fox producer to deliver to an executive at the studio. He sees himself as essentially outside and other and alone; he bites the hand that feeds. “Even though he knew I was on his side, nobody’s ever on his side,” Bill Mechanic, who ran Fox Studios during the making of “Titanic,” said. “It’s like you’re in the trenches and your infantry-mate is shooting at you, even if you’re the only one there who can save his life.”
There is a chivalric aspect to Cameron’s antagonism; he figures his struggles in heroic terms. “I try to live with honor, even if it costs me millions of dollars and takes a long time,” he says. “It’s very unusual in Hollywood. Few people are trustworthy—a handshake means nothing to them. They feel they’re required to keep an agreement with you only if you’re successful, or they need you. I’ve tried not to get sucked into the Hollywood hierarchy system. Personally, I don’t like it when people are deferential to me because I’m an established filmmaker. It’s a blue-collar sensibility.”
Cameron was born in Canada, and grew up in a small town not far from Niagara Falls. (He revoked his application for American citizenship after Bush won the election in 2004.) His father was an engineer for a paper company; his mother brought up five children, and told stories of racing stock cars and joining the women’s auxiliary of the Canadian Army. Jim was the oldest, the ringleader of his siblings and the other kids in the neighborhood. “There was always some new thing that absolutely needed to get done, whether it was building a fort or an airplane or launching rockets,” he told me. “We made it in the papers once, for a U.F.O. sighting over a hot-air balloon that we built and launched at night that was powered by candles.” His hero was Jacques Cousteau, and although he lived four hundred miles from the ocean, he became obsessed with scuba. He learned to dive in Buffalo one February in a Y.M.C.A. pool.
At fourteen, Cameron saw the movie that made him want to make his own: Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey,” the first cinematically exquisite treatment of what had traditionally been B-movie material. “I saw all these cool spacecraft and I wanted to know how the visual effects were done,” he said. “I started building my own models of spaceships, from the ‘2001’ model kit and the ‘making-of’ book, which was quite thick and well researched.” After he finished making “True Lies,” Cameron called Kubrick, by then a recluse, and invited himself over. They spent a day, in the basement of Kubrick’s house in the English countryside, watching “True Lies” at Kubrick’s flatbed editing station. Cameron went over the shots—Schwarzenegger in a Harrier jet firing a missile, with the villain attached to it, through an office building and into a helicopter: boom!—so that Kubrick could learn how the effects were done.
When Cameron was seventeen, his father was transferred to Southern California, and the family moved to Brea, a small city in Orange County. He had left Canada without a high-school diploma, and started taking classes at Fullerton Junior College, supporting himself by working as a precision tool-and-die machinist. “My dad was a college graduate,” he said. “But, see, I didn’t want to do the things he thought I should—you know, something good, like engineering.” He dropped out, and, when he was twenty-three, married a woman who worked as a waitress at a Bob’s Big Boy. For a while, he drove a truck for a local school district. In archetypal terms, this was his period of exile and self-denial, the refusal of the call. “I just became this blue-collar guy,” he said. “But I was constantly thinking as an artist, so I’m painting, drawing, writing, thinking about visual effects and filmmaking.”
In Brea, Cameron met William Wisher and Randall Frakes, who also wanted to make movies, and who are still his two best friends. Eventually, they raised the money to make a short film, “Xenogenesis,” starring Wisher as a futuristic man in an orange jumpsuit who battles an armored robot with a metal pincer for a hand. It got Cameron a job sculpting models for Roger Corman in L.A.
Corman’s studio—a training ground for filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, and Jonathan Demme—specialized in low-budget genre films. Cameron distinguished himself immediately, and soon he was designing sets. He was focussed—often working through the night—and he was scrappy. “He’d take all these random parts—Winnebago parts, industrial dishwashing racks, Sonotubes, a lot of paint—and turn them into an incredible set,” Paxton, who worked for Corman as a set dresser, recalled. For “Battle Beyond the Stars,” Corman’s takeoff on “Star Wars,” Cameron was asked to design the spaceships. “His sketches were brilliant,” Corman said. “The best of that type of work that I had ever seen.” Each spaceship reflected the character of its pilot, and also Cameron’s instinct for the iconic, literal image; to the mother ship, Nell, he gave a curvaceous shape and a pair of heaving breasts.
James Cameron doesn’t go to the bathroom; he goes to the head. In his universe, there is no front and back, right and left, just fore and aft, starboard and port. He is still an avid scuba diver; when there are sharks in the water, he says, he’s the first one in. Free-diving, he has held his breath for more than three minutes and reached a depth of a hundred and ten feet. (“You feel like a denizen of the deep, if only for a second,” he says. “Plus, diving below the scuba divers, I like just to see the look on their faces.”) He used to have a JetRanger helicopter, and owns a slew of dirt bikes, three Harleys, a Ducati, and a Ford GT—“basically a race car with a license plate”—in classic blue-and-white livery. In Corvettes, he has favored triple black—black body, black interior, black top. For pleasure, he designs submersibles; the one he’s working on now can go to thirty-six thousand feet, and he hopes to use it to explore the Mariana Trench, the deepest spot on earth. He signs his missives “Jim out,” and, when he’s working, a deep mechanical roar, like a Navy klaxon, summons him to the stage. “Dive! dive! dive!” he said, an intent look in his eyes, when I asked him what the signal meant.
I first met Cameron in April of 2008. “Avatar” was in its third year of production. For much of that time, Cameron had been working out of a couple of hangars in Playa del Rey, south of Los Angeles.* He was sitting in his office, a small room at the edge of one of the hangars, beside a bust of a feline-looking blue alien covered in bioluminescent spots: Neytiri, the Na’vi princess. “Our leading lady,” Cameron called her, or just “the blue chick.” He was wearing a T-shirt that said “Scubapro” and had a pair of earphones around his neck. Despite moviegoers’ associations of 3-D with schlocky horror films and animated stuff for kids, Cameron said he was resolved to work in the medium: “It gives you more of a sense of participation, involvement, and immersion. You feel like you’re bearing witness, and that makes the journey feel more real.” It was also a business decision. Having developed the camera technology, he knew that only a high-profile movie, such as “Avatar” promises to be, would accelerate the conversion of theatres. “I said, ‘They know the product. They better get ready.’ It was a little bit cheeky—a leap of faith that the screens would be there for us.” That spring, there were about fifteen hundred 3-D screens in the United States; by December, there will be three times that many. (“Avatar” will also have a wide release in 2-D.)
There was a knock at the door. “I have to go make a shot,” Cameron said. He walked swiftly toward the floor of the hangar, a vast industrial space that he referred to as “the performance-capture volume.” The stage floor, furnished with just a low riser, had been painted battleship gray. Zoë Saldana, who plays Neytiri, stood among a group of actors wearing black unitards covered with reflective white dots: a retro vision of the computer age, Pilobolus style. The ceiling was studded with black-and-white surveillance cameras that tracked the actors’ movements and positioned their performances inside a digital set—in this case, a Na’vi battle camp deep in the rain forest, where Jake’s avatar is preparing the warriors to fight with bows and arrows against the high-tech human war machines. Saldana wore a special head rig fitted with a tiny camera that floated inches from her face, to capture her expressions in minute detail: the movements of her facial muscles, the contractions of her pupils, the interaction of her teeth, lips, and tongue. The data uploaded to a dozen computers banked around the room, which translated the movements of the actors onto the physiques of their digital characters, and fed the images, along with the digital set design, into the eyepiece of Cameron’s “virtual camera”—essentially, a viewfinder with a monitor. For him, it was like directing a live-action shoot on Pandora. Saldana, who is five feet seven, performed in his eyepiece as a nine-foot alien in a rain forest.
On cue, the actors began to make strange trilling sounds, ejectives and glottal stops and rolled “r”s: Na’vi. Cameron stopped the scene. “When Jake goes”—Cameron uttered a mellifluous sentence in Na’vi—“you go, ‘Whoop! Whoop!’ ”
Back in his office, Cameron played an unfinished scene from “Avatar” on a large screen. The renderings were crude, like paper cutouts: the graphic sophistication of a nineteen-nineties video game. Neytiri—hipless, lean, with proportions to make Barbie look like a Cabbage Patch Kid—crouched on a tree limb high above the forest floor. She spotted Jake’s avatar for the first time, and took aim. The next shot was much more evolved. Neytiri’s skin was tactile and radiant; her eyes were huge and green and flecked with light, like five-dollar marbles from Conran. “This is ninety or ninety-five per cent done,” Cameron said. “By the way, we didn’t have the equipment when we started this. It took nine months to build the computer model and to get it right. It’s incredibly computationally complex, but now we’re able to replicate the interaction of muscle under skin.” He stopped the footage on a closeup of Neytiri’s face. “She exists only as a big string of ones and zeroes,” he said, as if he could not quite believe it himself. “Computing a single frame of this takes thirty hours.” He paused. “Everybody in this building has had more college than I have.”
All directors have a God complex; Cameron takes his unusually seriously. For “Avatar,” he worked with a linguist to develop the Na’vi language, inspired by fragments of Maori he picked up in New Zealand years ago. He based Pandora, and its myriad flora (spike tears, cliff slouchers, stinger ivy) and fauna (direhorses, banshees, slinths), partly on the creatures of the coral reefs and kelp forests he has seen at the abyssal depths. He hired a team of artists to execute his ideas, but reserved one creature for himself: the thanator, a six-legged black pantherlike beast, twenty-four feet long, covered in plate scales, with a reptilian double set of jaws and a threat display resembling that of a fan lizard. “The thanator is the baddest, meanest predator the planet had to offer,” Neville Page, the lead creature designer, said. “As Jim put it in the treatment, a thanator can eat an Alien for dessert. He wanted to outdo himself, outdo the Alien Queen.”
“Creating a universe is daunting,” George Lucas said. “I’m glad Jim is doing it—there are only a few people in the world who are nuts enough to. I did it with ‘Star Wars,’ and now he’s trying to challenge that. It’s a lot of work. I do believe Jim will take this further out than anyone’s ever conceived of.”
Cameron inserts himself into every aspect of the filmmaking process. With the virtual camera, he is both cinematographer and camera operator, working in his favorite style, handheld, for what he calls “an edgy, subjective quality.” The camera eliminates the need for cable cars, helicopters, or cranes, allowing him to shoot from any vantage point he chooses. “When I say, ‘Make me three to one,’ what I’m saying is ‘Make me eighteen feet tall,’ ” he said. “At that point, I’ve become a techno crane. If I say, ‘Make me twenty to one,’ I’m a helicopter.” The Na’vi, too, are an extension of Cameron. He mentioned that he is a lefty. “Guess what,” he said. “The Na’vi are all left-handed now.” He taught Zoë Saldana how to shoot her bow, as he envisioned it. “It’s a two-fingered inverted draw past the head, like a Samurai,” he said, tracing the shape in the air over his left shoulder. “The archery instructor came and said, ‘Do you want me to teach them archery or do you want me to teach them this? This would never work.’ I said, ‘See that bush?’ It was a hundred and fifty feet away. I nailed it.”
The next time I saw Cameron, the lights were low. A year had passed. His hair was longer and whiter, and he had grown a small paunch; later, I learned that he had broken a tooth and hadn’t bothered to fix it. (“I don’t smile that broadly anyway,” he said.) He was alone, moving slowly, grapevining his left foot gingerly over his right leg as he made his way around the performance-capture volume, in soft-soled slip-ons. (“Like a waitress, I have to wear sensible shoes.”) He had the virtual camera in front of him; he was lost, like a gamer in a trance. A large monitor nearby displayed what he saw in his eyepiece: a digital aircraft with a human pilot, crashing through the lush Pandoran jungle.
Cameron was choosing angles for a sequence that had been captured months before. When he finished, he looked up at Jon Landau, his producer, who was standing at the edge of the space. Landau used to work for Fox, where he oversaw the production of “True Lies,” before going to work for Cameron’s production company, Lightstorm, in 1995. His T-shirt said something about Tommy Bahama’s Dive Bar; staying close to Cameron means embracing scuba culture in whatever way you can.
“What’s with the tan?” Cameron asked him. “No one’s supposed to have a tan here. We’re in here fourteen hours a day. We see the sun as we drive to work, and not again till the next morning.”
“I fell asleep by the pool in Vegas yesterday,” Landau said. Cameron looked appalled.
Hours passed; Cameron danced. Eventually, Stephen Lang, who plays the film’s villain, came in, wearing heavy boots and a soiled, bloodstained camouflage jacket. A long, flexible arrow was stuck into his chest.
“Should there be more blood on my shirt?” he asked.
“We’re going to play it that the arrow seals the wound,” Cameron said.
“Thank you, Jim!” Landau said. He is trying to keep the film PG-13.
Most of “Avatar” ’s live-action scenes were filmed in New Zealand in 2007, but, the next day, Cameron had to get a few shots of Lang inside an “armored mobility platform,” or AMP suit. The suit, which, in the finished film, will be a combination of digital effects and physical set, is a menacing piece of military hardware, like a personal tank. A prop guy asked if the suit would have any bearing on how Lang’s character reacted when attacked.
“That’s a damn good question,” Cameron said. “We’ve already established the idea that when the suit is grabbed it looks like it’s in agony.” Cameron put on a nasal, whiny voice—his rendition of a fixated fanboy. “ ‘How come the suit didn’t move the right way? The fourteenth time I saw the film, in my basement, I really questioned the editorial integrity of it.’ ” He laughed, and then grew suddenly serious, as if aware that he had just said something jinxy: he should be so fortunate. “O.K.—shirt with schmutz and sweat,” he said, fingering the fabric around the entry wound. He looked down at his hands, which were now smeared with fake blood. “I have so much blood on my hands, from all the movies, metaphorically and psychically,” he said.
That night at half past eight, Cameron marched upstairs, two at a time, to a mess of cubicles he called “the lab,” where artists and programmers were stationed at computer screens. The lab smelled of coffee. Nearly everyone had chin hair. Cameron headed for a screening room for his nightly video conference with Weta, Peter Jackson’s digital-effects studio, in New Zealand, which was responsible for taking the basic renderings done by Cameron’s team and turning them into photo-realistic images: the bright, sentient eyes; the muscle under skin; the movement of wind, water, hair. Jackson says that “Avatar” ’s digital characters are more nuanced and vivid than any that have come before. “I’ve seen people looking at ‘Avatar’ shots, being convinced they are somehow looking at actors in makeup,” he wrote me in an e-mail.
Cameron, Landau, and several others sat in the dark, facing a large screen. A smaller screen showed six artists from Weta, at a conference table in New Zealand. “Avatar” has nearly three thousand effects shots; Cameron will review some of them as many as twenty times. He is an exacting critic, and an exuberant showoff, and the meetings provide a captive audience. Any disagreement is resolved with the indisputable logic of an older sibling who has invented a game and deigned to let his kid brother play: his universe, he wins. “I hate this fucking thing, but I can be very specific about it,” he said, when an image of a rock arch sacred to the Na’vi came up on the screen. “This looks like petrified wood,” he said, circling the offending part with a red laser pointer. “It has a longitudinal grain structure. It looks very fragile to me. This hard, crystally structure looks like barn wood. We want to say that this arch formed as igneous rock, that it’s a lava formation that got eroded, but it’s fracturing out along the crystal planes of minerals.”
At one point, Landau asked if Jake’s avatar’s ears looked a touch too red in a closeup shot. “When you direct your movie with nine-foot-tall blue people, you can do whatever you want,” Cameron said. “The ears are red when they’re backlit. That’s how they look.”
“Agreed,” Landau said cheerfully. He seemed used to it.
The meeting ended on a boisterous note. “That fuckin’ rocks!” Cameron called out in response to an image of a snarling maw of thin blue-veined tissue, the mouth of the pterodactyl-like banshee that Jake’s avatar domesticates for his ride. “Look at the gill-like membrane on the side of the mouth, its transmission of light, all the secondary color saturation on the tongue, and that maxilla bone. I love what you did with the translucence on the teeth, and the way the quadrate bone racks the teeth forward. It’s a sharky thing. As wacky as this creature is, it looks completely real. Maybe I’m getting high on my own supply.” He was practically out of breath. “The banshee lives! He’s a fierce-looking sonuvabitch.”
Home, for Cameron, is a fortress of preparedness. Since 1992, he has lived in Malibu, in a gated community called Serra Retreat, a patch of scrubby hillside across the highway from the beach. Mel Gibson lives in Serra Retreat; Britney Spears used to be Cameron’s neighbor there. Cameron’s place is a custard-colored nineteen-eighties Spanish house, with a red tile roof, in a small cul-de-sac; at the end of his driveway, there is a gate, beyond which stands a red Humvee platform fire truck and a uniformed security guard, with a clipboard and a badge. Ex-military buddies of his younger brother John David, who served as a marine in Iraq during the first Gulf War, sometimes provide additional security.
Cameron’s imagination was shaped by the Cold War; the threat of nuclear annihilation is a recurring theme. But he also admires the military and its accessories. “I suppose you could say I believe in peace through superior firepower,” he told me. “I don’t believe that the human race is going to suddenly evolve to the point that we can all join hands and sing ‘Kumbaya.’ ” He learned to shoot—shotguns, assault rifles, pistols—in the early eighties, when he was writing “The Terminator.” “I didn’t want to write like an idiot, based on some kind of comic-book knowledge,” he said. “I do a lot of things in the pursuit of creating a patina of reality in what is basically fantasy.” He has continued his education, training with a handgun expert on a course with pop-up targets, and spending a lot of time in the desert with his friends, shooting up watermelons and jalopies with an AK-47.
Five years ago, Cameron bought the house next door, which had belonged to George C. Scott. Same architect, same style. It contains a post-production facility, and has editing rooms and a screening room. One recent morning, a young male assistant was in the kitchen, sorting silverware, while another made coffee. A tiled center island was laden with pudgy chocolate-chip muffins and cannisters of pretzels: suburban-abundance comfort food, for people working around the clock. Cameron came in at nine and poured himself a decaf. (He stopped drinking caffeine after “Terminator 2.”) He was wearing jeans and an Atlantic-blue button-down shirt. He walked out the back door to a large pool and patio. Lawn chairs and chaises and glass-topped tables suggested various forms of leisure. Cameron looked at the furniture uncertainly, as if he had never contemplated using it before. He chose a spot under an umbrella. Belle, one of three black German shepherds Cameron keeps, dropped a slimy tennis ball at his feet.
“We have a big fire problem here,” he said. He mentioned that he has his own pump house. “We take the pool water, mix it with Class A foam, and pump it out over the whole property. Everybody else just runs for the hills.” He threw his hands up and did a squeaky voice. “ ‘Oh, my God!’ We sit and wait. Put on our yellow coats and our breathing gear and wait. And, you know what? It’s impressive. When these hills light up with a hundred-foot-tall wall of flames coming over the top of the hill there, you feel like it’s Armageddon.”
Cameron has had five wives (waitress, producer, director, actress, actress). He has four children, ranging in age from sixteen to two, and a nineteen-year-old stepson. Since 2000, he has been married to Suzy Amis, who had a small role in “Titanic.” She no longer acts; several years ago, she founded Muse Elementary, a private school with an emphasis on ecological consciousness, in a setting that is, according to its Web site, a “dye-free, toxin-free, pesticide-free zone.”
Before Amis, Cameron was married to Linda Hamilton, who played Sarah Connor, a woman hunted by unstoppable cyborgs, in the “Terminator” films. As Hamilton recalls it, she and Cameron didn’t get along particularly well during the first shoot. “My joke after that movie was, That man is definitely on the side of the machines,” she said. For the sequel, in which Sarah Connor has become a near-psychotic paramilitary fighter deranged by her foreknowledge of the imminent destruction of the world, Hamilton spent a year on a merciless fat-free diet, and trained with a former Mossad agent, who taught her to strip weapons blindfolded while he threw things at her and asked for her identification number. She got so that she could escape from L.A.P.D. handcuffs using just a paper clip.
Not long after Cameron finished shooting “Terminator 2,” he got divorced from his wife at the time, the director Kathryn Bigelow. (They are still friends: Bigelow says that when she got the finished script for “The Hurt Locker,” her latest film, Cameron was the first person whose opinion she sought out.) He and Hamilton got together, and moved into the house in Serra Retreat. “The very first night, I realized it was a mistake,” she told me. “He was the controlling director. The person I’d seen on set came back to life—we’re in his environment, and I didn’t have much of a say-so.” She found herself on survivalist weekends in the desert, flying kit planes and shooting fruit, and riding shotgun in Cameron’s Corvette. “It was Jimbo who had the love of fast cars, but as the warrior bride I was on the back of the motorcycle,” she said. She wanted to get married, but Cameron, she says, was not interested in a conventional domestic life: “He used to say to me, ‘Anybody can be a father or a husband. There are only five people in the world who can do what I do, and I’m going for that.’ ” She got pregnant, and moved out when their daughter, Josephine—Cameron’s first child—was nine months old.
Despite living apart, Cameron and Hamilton remained a couple, and he proved to be a devoted father. “We’d have a fight at Geoffrey’s”—a surf-and-turf restaurant on the Pacific Coast Highway—“and go our separate ways,” she said. “Much alcohol was consumed by Linda Hamilton.” After six years, when Cameron was making “Titanic,” they married. Hamilton was going to get scuba-certified, but the relationship unravelled too rapidly for that. “In the end, it was an eight-month marriage, and he went off with someone who’s much better suited to him,” Hamilton said. They divorced, and Cameron and Amis married shortly thereafter.
Wisher, Cameron’s old friend, says that strong women are one of the constants in Cameron’s life: “He likes to write about ’em and he likes to marry ’em. If there’s one or two themes that run through his life and work, that’s at the top of the list. That and self-determination. ‘There is no fate but what you make’—that line from ‘The Terminator.’ That’s his credo, I’m sure.”
| 59,369 | 115,105 | 93,936 | 268,410 |
Here's five ideas to get us started...
1. Jake actually betrays the Na'vi
Our hero's journey is smooth sailing: Jake so badly needs his destination that there's never much ambivalence about the journey. This lack of internal conflict manifests when the Na'vi tribe rejects him: his only betrayal of them is the plain fact of his original mission, which he'd had abandoned in any case. Wasn't it obvious that he might be telling others what he'd learned about the tribe? As the first "warrior" dreamwalker, no less.
If Jake instead pursued an explicit and timely opportunity to betray his new friends, his 'going native' afterward would have been a powerful moral turning point rather than a faint point on a 'character arc.'
2. Give his rival some balls
In Dune, off-worlder Paul Atreides is forced to kill to gain acceptance with the locals when his own kind finally forces him into the wilds. In Avatar, however, Jake only has to show up on a fancy ride. Instead of becoming a nonentity after their earlier aikido warmup, Na'vi chief-to-be Tsu-tey could have drawn a line in the moss: I represent the caution and tradition of my people, and you'll have to beat me down to change and lead us. If Jake has to defeat, even kill an ally who hates him, it tarnishes his character--but Pandora is red in tooth and claw, after all, and it is what he's fighting for.
3. The savages show how smart they are
Jake masters the bow and horse. Why not let one of the Na'vi surprise everyone by getting to grips with some of that weird sky-people tech? And perhaps even do a little betrayal of his or her own.
4. Show the colonel's hidden depths
You can't just let Steven Lang take a role like that and then bury him in cartoon villainy. Colonel Quaritch is evidently a spiritually blasted former soldier who went private-sector after tiring of fighting dirty wars. As Lang says in an interview, "I didn't play a villain; I played a man who is doing his job the best way that he can." But he isn't given much space for that nuance by the script. For example, he knows that his brief is to protect a blood diamond operation, not patriotic duty, and yet in his climactic battle with Jake, he asks him how he could betray his people. What he really means is, "How could you not be a soldier, son?"
In the movie, Jake simply snarls. A retort would be sweeter. "Is that what they told you when you quit Venezuela?" does the the trick. The Colonel knows he's lost, after all, and getting irony thrown in his face offers him a chance to choose his own doom--without any need for the leaden pathos that often comes with such turnarounds. Consider the many suggestions that Quaritch is the only human on Pandora to feel at home there in his own body--he is much more like the Na'vi than he'd like to admit.
5. Kill Carter Burke
That brings us to the disinterested corporate apparatchik in charge of the whole show. He's the real villain of the piece, who gives the natives none of the respect offered them by his soldiers and scientists, at least until his decisions' moral consequences are thrown in his face by Ripley.
Wait... wrong movie. In any case, Mr. Cameron had the right idea the first time around. Kill the slimeball--or better yet, let an alien do it.
....................................................................................................
After I read Monika Bartyzel's December 27th piece n Cinematical, 'Avatar' and the Death of Storytelling, my instinct was to explain in some detail why this was wrongheaded.
Four days and a third view of the film from start to finish later and I am less inclined to do so... because the argument Bartyzel makes is so lame and unsupportable by anything other than the hubristic urge to piss on what's popular, it is not worth my time or yours. Somehow, we are supposed to just buy the premise that the storytelling is weak... and discuss from there.
To give the author and those who wish to dance naked in the warm drool of the headline their due, the headline is more clear in its argument than the wandering, unfocused article. Bartyzel seems to suffer the child-journalist's difficulty (and I have no idea how old or experienced Bartyzel is... the name has never registered with me before) of confusing personal disappointment with the objective failure of others. Worse is the rhetorically moronic trope of "if they had only made an effort!" Oy.
To wit: "(How the frak can James Cameron have cooked this story up for a decade, waiting for technology to catch up with his vision, and not want the story to be killer?"
or
"What could Cameron have done? It seems all too simple -- workshop the script, get advice from trusted names, put similar effort into all aspects of the film."
Or, hey, he could have made Avatar into a blog and just pulled stuff out of his ass instead of making the movie.
Do I think that Cameron should have found someone he trusted who would have told him that some of the clinker lines in the film could have been smoothed down? Yes. But a half-dozen pieces of overly gung-ho dialogue is not "the end of storytelling."
If you actually look at Avatar clearly, thinking seriously about the storytelling, it is as complex as any film Charlie Kaufman has ever written. What it is not - and I think that this could be be and should be seriously considered by writers who chose to think about film seriously - is particularly oblique, as many of the films that "serious" critics choose to love are. But what's funny about that is that if you really start to think about what's been set up in Avatar, nature perhaps being hard-wired in a literal way, Cameron is throwing out as big an idea as any studio film has offered in years.
Avatar is a genre movie. Absolutely. And when it isn't thrilling the audience, it is usually reaching for emotion, not intellect. But it is also a master class in story structure. The weakest parts of the first act - all the Basil Exposition moments - are all paid off in a big way in the third act.
I defy any of the bashers to come up with a major element of the movie that doesn't actually make sense in the context of the movie. I'm sure there are a few minor ones... there always seem to be a few, even in the most highly regarded films. But this is not Charlie's Angels: Full Frontal or Bad Boys II or even Transformers, #1 or #2, randomly inserting action sequences that never quite fit the context of what minor story that is being offered.
What Avatar is not is as dark and mysterious as The Dark Knight. There is no evil character as strong as The Joker. Our hero and heroine are not as brooding and focused as The Batman. And the moral questions of Avatar are not as clearly stated or as yes/no as The Dark Knight. But all that said, the story structure of the movie is more successful than TDK at delivering on what it promises.
Everyone and anyone should be welcome to prefer one kind of discussion of ideas at the movies over another. I am in no way suggesting that Bartyzel or anyone else needs to bow to Avatar, either for commercial or aesthetic reasons. (And the "we are the rebels under attack by big bad money" shtick from the bashers is unrelenting.) But attack what you really don't like. Please don't feel compelled to so grossly overreach as to attack a complex and working structure - the columns holding the visuals up - in order to try to bring down the whole thing.
Avatar delivers more, I would argue, than people realize, not because the storytelling is weak, but because audiences - however smart - have a hard time seeing the story for the digital trees.
SPOILERS
Let's just take a part of the third act of the film.
At the start of the act, the humans who have taken the side of the Na'Vi against industry, the military, and indeed, even humans in general, move forward without discussion and without a plan. They have changed sides 100% and behave as a native would instinctively. They need to get out of the enemy's stronghold and to get back to what is now their home.
What makes this interesting and complex is that just one scene before, this group was still working with the other humans to try to mediate. Without dialogue explaining this, the audience understands what's happened. And the first thing this band of New Na'Vis does when free, also without explanation, is to take - as best they can - control of their avatars into their own hands and away from the belligerent humans.
Once they make this transition, Cameron flips the entire movie. Jakesully finds a way to become a leader again and brings the military insight that if united, the indigenous population could fight off the intruders. (Ironically, to my argument, the existence of other tribes isn't introduced until this scene... one loose thread.) Suddenly, the Sky People are on the defensive... suddenly they are rationalizing not that they have a mission and hate those in their way, but that if they don't attack first, they will be destroyed by those "blue monkeys," who are organizing only because the Sky People trying to annihilate them.
Cameron then flips the movie again, introducing the concept of a nuclear weapon, with the threat to bomb out the second most important place for the Na'Vi (the white tree).
And Cameron flips the movie one more time with the arrival of nature to defend itself.
END SPOILERS
This represents four major power shifts in the third act alone. None of it is casual, random, or even confusing. It is clear to the audience without being spelled out. They feel it. And that is a real achievement in story telling.
Again... I am not saying that the film is flawless. I am not saying that box office gross = quality or social importance or anything else. All I am saying is that the movie is hitting people in a real way and to try to take that away by claiming, without a real argument, that it's "just visuals" is irresponsible and dumb.
Those of us who write fot public consumption about movies always have a choice. We can try to figure out what is going on with audiences when they latch onto a particular film. Or we can judge them as we judge the movie and try to argue why those stupid people have been suckered into thinking they are enjoying themselves. I guess there is a third choice... bowing to whatever is commercial... quote whoring on whatever level. And I often think the "I'm so much smarter than them" arguments are a response to those quote whore types... and completely forget that real people find real enjoyment in these films and there may be a reason that we have not yet considered.
I have no idea how anyone can stand the Twilight movies or the Sex & The City movie... but they don't only pay to see these films... they LOVE them. I got it a little more on Mamma Mia!. And I still feel fine about saying these films SUCK without having to demean those who love them. Yes, me saying it will anger and/or embarrass some who love them. But that's just the gig.
What is NOT the gig is arguing that Twilight is the end of cinematography or that Sex & The City was the end of feminism or that Mamma Mia! is the end of singing by male leads or, for that matter, Meryl Streep acting without mugging.
Heck... if you aren't intellectually curious, that's okay too. Maybe that's your niche! If it is, please disregard all I just wrote. So sorry to get in the way of your malevolent fun.
.................................................................................................................
By Monika Bartyzel
As people gush about Avatar, allowing the beauty to make up for a storyline that seems to leave most fans disappointed, I wonder: By buying into this whole love-the-pretty-visuals bend, are we helping to end the art of storytelling? Actions have a reaction. Money talks. Merge those two together and it seems like we're sending a loud and clear message to Hollywood that we don't care if the story sucks as long as everything looks pretty. It would certainly account for the neverending barrage of crappy, big-visuals, big-action features.
Of course, it's not so easy to just ignore a film like Avatar. It's been buzzed about for eons. It has infiltrated television shows and plastered its message near and far. We've got to see it. The curiosity is too high. At the same time, however, how the frak can James Cameron have cooked this story up for a decade, waiting for technology to catch up with his vision, and not want the story to be killer? How can he not at least work that script into a form that can at least begin to rival the visuals it's matched with? It seems like an insult. Sure, as Todd Gilchrist pointed out, the man isn't known for his stories. But they usually don't have the push, the marketing, and the time that this one did. While waiting for that technology to meet your needs, why not get some trusted opinions and hone the script? Make each word, each moment, and each scene parallel the beauty of Cameron's cinematic eye -- imagine what the film would've been then.
The production budget was enormous. It was a project that took a decade to complete. If we can't expect 10 years to bring us solid storytelling, one of the most basic essences of cinema, that doesn't bode so well for Hollywood's cinematic future. Long-gestating projects are a different cinematic beast than something like Transformers, which got a sequel quickly to capitalize on the box office, which was meant to be nothing but goofy spectacle. At least those popcorn flicks have the excuse of speed and fluff.
What could Cameron have done? It seems all too simple -- workshop the script, get advice from trusted names, put similar effort into all aspects of the film. But there's also the cinematic world at large to consider. Do you think we're approaching the death of storytelling, and how can we avoid it or fix the problem? Must we rob ourselves the pleasure of beautiful films in protest? Thoughts?
| ThW | Title | ATT | SC (TH) | Avg GR/SC (GR/TH) | ATT to Date |
| 1 | AVATAR | 165,166 | 254 (100) | $12,478 ($31,695) | 165,166 |
| 2 | 2012 | 22,953 | 118 (89) | $3,203 ($4,246) | 899,608 |
| 3 | ACTIVIDAD PARANORMAL | 12,661 | 65 (56) | $3,436 ($3,988) | 232,931 |
| 4 | CENA DE AMIGOS | 5,775 | 14 (14) | $7,486 ($7,486) | 5,775 |
| 5 | AMANTE A DOMICILIO | 5,328 | 27 (27) | $3,655 ($3,655) | 5,328 |
| 6 | LOS FANTASMAS DE SCROOGE | 4,254 | 68 (60) | $999 ($1,133) | 378,957 |
| 7 | LUNA NUEVA | 3,829 | 45 (44) | $1,319 ($1,349) | 863,704 |
| 8 | ROSETTA | 3,423 | 8 (8) | $6,959 ($6,959) | 3,423 |
| 9 | PLANET 51 | 3,403 | 53 (51) | $966 ($1,004) | 175,753 |
| 11 | LOS AMANTES | 2,009 | 19 (18) | $1,687 ($1,781) | 81,833 |

The L's Benjamin Strong thinks it does (as do I), which explains, really, why for him, "Storytelling has never been Cameron's strong suit," whereas for the WOWed Dargis, "He’s a masterly storyteller."
The reason why Avatar permits these two seemingly incompatible readings has to do with cinema-as-spectacle.
In the same sentence, Dargis also allows that Cameron is "a rather less nimble prose writer," citing the hero "taunt[ing] a rhinolike creature" with a "Yeah, who's bad," which I think we can all agree is no "Fuck you, asshole," let alone "Hasta la vista, baby," as far as dialogue-by-baddass-preadolescent-catchphrase goes.
Cameron's two-fisted tales and comic-book dialogue are matched with a fairly elemental narrative about a young man choosing between two parents (the scientist played by Sigourney Weaver and the mercenary played by Stephen Lang); or the narrative's about a young man leaving the world he knows and finding love, adventure and his own place in another tribe; or it's about a messianic leader who comes to lead an afflicted tribe. In all cases it's some real hero's-journey shit, so if you think Cameron is a transcendent visual worldmaker, then all the classical story, corny dialogue and rousing speeches become, well, Pure Storytelling, with archetypal character types and scenes and dialogue capable of consolidating a whole culture, like how Joseph Campbell is always going on about Star Wars and Jung.
(One might point out Avatar's virgin's secret awe of sex, and recall Terminator 2, in which the fans of the first movie had all their fantasies and tastes validated by an epic narrative, and conclude that Cameron's sensibility is too stuck in adolescence to be truly transcendent pulp. But let's proceed a little longer under the stipulation that it works in the way he wants it to.)
Of course Cameron knows all that, about archetypes, and is, like Lucas and Spielberg and all those soppy-hearted dumbdowners, far more self-conscious of his mythic material than most of the mythmakers he grew up loving. (His self-cultivated legend for outsized storytelling tends to reinforce this assumption.) He takes it upon himself to be The One to show the world the latent grandeur of our pulp stories.
It's not, I don't suppose, a bad thing, in the historical longview, that Cameron is a hubristic, self-aggrandizing filmmaker, any more than it's a bad thing that like D.W. Griffith was. No, the problem is that Avatar is a self-aggrandizing film.
Cameron's hero, an ex-Marine, ultimately sides with the oppressed native people against the imperialist American energy concern and its private security force, some kind of hybrid Native American jihad. Though, as the L's Strong says, "it's hard to entertain seriously the proposition that the Most Expensive Movie Ever is on the side of the underdogs."
But aside from the intractable disingenuousness of a movie from which Rupert Murdoch stands to profit casting its lot with the insurgency, there's the matter of why exactly Cameron does this. By all accounts he's a good liberal—albeit one who probably jerks off to Lara Croft and is obsessed with firearms—and he makes pretty explict Avatar's anti-Bush subtext. But Avatar doesn't play out the way it does because Cameron has subversive political views: it's less concerned with the cause of the underdogs than it is with the agent of their improbable deliverance.
Cameron's identification with his protagonist—his on-screen avatar, like him a macho explorer of unknown realms—is evident. And then this hero becomes the Great White Hope for Avatar's blue people—as did, many have pointed out, the character played by Kevin Costner in Kevin Costner's three-hour film Dances with Wolves. Cameron's identification with the underdog isn't political, it's personal—Goliath's side isn't in need of a savior.
Avatar's existence, and success, primarily serves to reflect glory on James Cameron. Which, again, is fine. But its story does so as well, by hinging on the lone hero who arrives in time to do the impossible. In her review, The Dargis refers to Titanic as a "megamelodrama," which I initially read as "megalodrama." That sounds about right for Avatar, actually.