Mr. Cameron spoke recently to ArtsBeat about Avatars past and present, as well as his future plans. These are excerpts from that conversation.
Q. Have you reached that saturation point where youve gotten sick of talking about Avatar?
A. That was about eight months ago. [laughs] Im way past that. Im numb at this point.
Q. Well, I appreciate your faking your way through this, then.
A. Its not that. Its turned into a kind of never-ending saga, really, because of the various iterations of the film. First the success, then the awards, then all the environmental work that was the fallout of the messaging of the movie, and then the DVD release. Then the theatrical re-release and now the special edition. I just want to be able to close the files so we dont have to go back into them again. I had my team for the theatrical re-released version, and just said, Guys, lets just go for broke - lets just do everything that we could imagine fans would ever want to see.
Q. There is even more material in this latest DVD release that hasnt been seen previously. Where does it keep coming from?
A. There are different grades of finished. Part of the concept here, which was a little bit radical, was, lets do a theatrical re-release and well do it in Imax and digital 3-D, and well finish the effects up to a release standard. And why not finish those effects to go into an even longer cut of the film in the collectors edition? That accounts for about 16 minutes of material. Beyond that, we have an additional 47 minutes of scenes that were taken out at various stages along the cutting process while the film was first being fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle. The film was made twice at least the CG scenes were to finish them up to our internal level of completion, which we called template. Then we give it to Weta Digital [the New Zealand visual-effects company], and Weta Digital would finish it to the photo-real level that was for release. So we have 47 minutes of stuff thats finished up to a template level, and its watchable, you get it, but you can really see that its not done.
Q. There are certain directors who often say their films are not done when theyre released, and they want to rework them. Has that been true in your experience as well?
A. Its never really been that. We did a special edition of Aliens that I just felt made a more complete viewing of the film. Like, if you really wanted to be scared to death for longer. And then with The Abyss, it really was a different movie in its directors cut. Thats the only one where I really feel a sense of vindication as a filmmaker, where I felt like I was getting my day in court. With Avatar, its more horses for courses. When we did the theatrical re-release, that was for people who really wanted the big-screen experience and were fans of the movie and wanted to come back and immerse themselves in it. When you get the collectors edition, its more of an alternate-reality experience of the Avatar story, and I think thats permissible. I think the new technologies allow that, and its fun to have that relationship with a fan base, where you can literally give them alternative ways of viewing the film.
Q. What would be an example of that?
A. For example, heres a thing that popped into my head when we were in the middle of this process. Im a parent. I get into a lot of trouble with my wife when I let the kids watch Avatar. For the next two weeks, theyre running around saying, [swear word] and [swear word]. So I said, why dont we take all of the network ADR [re-recorded dialogue] that we did, where you cover every line for some network version thatll air 10 years later, and why dont we put that in and do a family-friendly audio track and advertise it on the box? As a parent I would love that. If I was looking at a boxed set in a store, and it said, Family-friendly audio - all objectionable language has been removed, Id be like, great, now I can watch this movie with my kids, without having to flinch every time somebody swears.
Q. Do you think the success of Avatar set off an arms race among the Hollywood studios to release as many 3-D movies as possible?
A. I think it accelerated a move toward 3-D that was already in progress. There were a number of 3-D films that were being very successful over a period of three years or so, but Avatar was the moment that the wave crested, if you will. After that it was undeniable that 3-D was going to be lucrative and it was here to stay, and it wasnt a gimmick and all those things. And I think there was a rush, a gold rush, and some mistakes were made and some bad 3-D reached the marketplace. And then there was a little pushback from the audience, that we dont want to pay extra for something thats not a great experience. And I think that the studios have been somewhat chastened by that, and theyre now attempting to do 3-D at a higher quality.
Q. So you think theyve learned from these experiences?
A. Were seeing now that the studios are swinging away from the hasty conversions. Of course, Warner Brothers just got smacked by not being able to get Harry Potter done in time. Id been on record for years that you cant do conversion as part of a post-production process on a big movie, because no one is willing to insert the two or three or four months necessary to doing it well. Theyve got the cost of the interest clock running on a $150 million negative. Thats $5, $10 million right there, the interest costs of delaying a release. And of course, they dont even factor it in when they push the button and green-light a movie. Its already based on a release date they think they can make, based on everything they know. You cant suddenly open up that post schedule by four months, to do 3-D right. So finally somebody got burned, which is Warners, and theyd already partially got burned on Clash of the Titans. So now the word is out there that the conversion companies have been low-balling their bids to get a foothold in the market, because theyre all start-ups.
Q. Meaning that these companies are underestimating how much time and how much money it will really take to do the job?
A. I think theyre doing two things: they were low-balling the bid and they were delivering shabby 3-D, because they had no choice, because it had to be done as a throughput thing. When youre buying 3-D by the yard, $50,000 a minute or $70,000 a minute, its not really being done correctly, where its really an artistic process. I talked to Louis Leterrier, who did Clash of the Titans, and he was in England mixing the movie while they were doing the 3-D here. So the filmmaker wasnt even involved in the process. It was just being applied like a layer, purely for profit motive. There was no artistry to it whatsoever. Now everybodys realizing thats not the right way to do it. Theyre having to get on that learning curve. I think thats O.K. These are almost, in a way, predictable oscillations of an emerging market.
Q. So what do you think of George Lucass plans to re-release all of his live-action Star Wars movies in 3-D?
A. Ive been encouraging him to do that for years. He and I went to ShoWest in 2005 and he showed a little bit of converted Star Wars and I showed some of my 3-D stuff, and we said, 3-D is coming. We wanted to get exhibitors excited about 3-D so theyd put it in the number of screens that we needed. George has been talking about this for a long time and its finally coming to fruition, and I think thats the true and correct use of the conversion technology, is for movies that are already done and are already beloved films. I want to do it with Titanic, maybe Ill go back to T2, I dont know. Steven [Spielberg] could do it on some of his films that wed all, Im sure, love to see in 3-D. But it has to be done right, and it has to be done with the blessing and the supervision of the filmmaker.
Q. You dont think he was in any way motivated by what youd accomplished with Avatar, to at least keep pace with that technology?
A. He did hang back for a while. I think he was waiting for there to be a wide enough install base, both in movie theaters and now were looking at the roll-out of 3-D television. I think hes timed it wisely to a point where he can do the theatrical re-release and then roll right into a 3-D DVD re-release. You dont want to create a glut of your own product. He had only just, a couple of years ago, finished his whole epic cycle of six films. Titanic has been out of theaters for, what, 12 years now? Were going to bring it out in 3-D as a theatrical re-release on the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic in 2012. Its an arbitrary length of time but its a specific date - its a specific date that means something to people. There will be a lot of talk about the Titanic disaster in the news, and the nonfiction TV sector at that time.
Q. Where are you now in preparing a 3-D version of Titanic?
A. Were in the early stages of that process. Weve been moving very slowly to make sure that we do it right, and weve basically gone to every single vendor who does 3-D conversion, thats a credible vendor, and there were seven that we have received tests from. Weve analyzed the tests, in a couple of cases we sent them back and told them to remake parts of it, because it was unacceptable, and now were baking off the different vendors against each other and were going to choose the top two or three vendors and were going to split the show up between them. Thats our game plan. So we maximize the quality. Everybodys busy now because theres a lot of conversion work.
Q. Given that the technology is there, and the distribution system is coming into place, is it likely that all the studios will start looking at the library titles theyve got and see which films they can re-release in 3-D? Wont this be the colorization debate all over again?
A. I think thats a business strategy that everybody thats got a library is going to be looking at. But I think its never going to reach the level of colorization. Because colorization was always a little bit of a bastard technology. The price point was low enough that you could start converting libraries, but people never really accepted the quality.
Theres a danger that conversion could go down that path. Fortunately in this 3-D renaissance that were in right now, people are demanding quality. And theyre paying for it: theyre paying a premium. As long as it has to be the highest quality, the highest and best use of your filmgoing time, then you cant just do that and do these bulk conversions.
The thing about 3-D conversion is, if you dont have actual data from the moment of photography, then it really boils down to a human, in the loop, sitting and watching a screen saying, O.K., that guy is closer than that guy, this table is in front of that chair, and theres no other way to do. Theres no magic-wand software solution for this. Its people looking at screens, making creative decisions. The thing that we found with our seven vendors on the Titanic test, which was only a minute long, they had six shots to do and all seven of the vendors came back with a different idea of where they thought things were, spatially. So its all very subjective, which is why its best if the filmmaker stays in the process. In my case, I was there when I shot it [laughs]. I know where everything was. Ive got a strong sense of what it should look like.
Q. Wont there be people who will argue that these films shouldnt be converted to 3-D simply because it isnt what their filmmakers originally intended?
A. I think the beauty of it is that purists can always be purists. And people who dont care can watch it in 3-D. The problem right now is theres so much pressure on existing product being converted. There arent enough new titles. The second we start broadcasting sports and episodic television, and all that in 3-D, thats going to satisfy the demand thats going to drive the sets. And then I think, sure, studios will look back at their libraries, but theyll pick the best titles, to spend that kind of money on. If it costs you $15 million to convert a movie reasonably well, more to do it perfectly, youre not going to do that with every film. Youre going to do it with only a handful of films that you believe you can reap that amount of additional from, downstream.
Q. Im glad to see you have faith in the movie studios about some things.
A. I dont really have faith. I have faith in their greed. And if they feel that theyre damaging their own market, I think that will inhibit them from doing things that are too egregiously stupid.
Q. Theres a lot of curiosity about what your next movie will be. Is an Avatar sequel a fait accompli?
A. I wouldnt say its inevitable because we still havent worked out our deal with 20th Century Fox. So were still in an ongoing negotiation on that. Because its a big piece of business, and Im trying to map it out as a game plan that stretches forward 10 years. And they dont like to think that long term. Well get it worked out, probably. I would assign a high probability to that. Whether thats my next film or not remains to be seen.
Q. Theres been some discussion in the industry trade publications that youre contemplating a 3-D Cleopatra film that would star Angelina Jolie. Where do you stand with that?
A. Theres a Cleopatra project in work, meaning that its been in development at Sony. And its a subject thats always fascinated me. So yeah, Ive been talking to them about it but no decisions have been made. But it sounds hot, doesnt it? I mean, Angelina Jolie and Cleopatra? To me, thats like a slam dunk. Whether I wind up doing it or not, I think its going to be a great project.
Q. I dont mean to discourage you, but someone probably once said the same thing about Elizabeth Taylor and Cleopatra.
A. [laughs] Yeah, but you know, there were a lot of people betting against us on Titanic as well. That kind of stuff isnt particularly daunting to me. The idea of 10-foot-tall blue people that were 100 percent CG, it was Smurf Planet, plenty of reasons why Avatar wasnt going to work either.
