PDA

View Full Version : James Cameron Finally Returns!!!



Beast
01-23-2004, 03:10 PM
Wow, this took long enough. After so many years of him doing nothing but pursuing his fascination with the sea and underwater photography with documentaries. Eccentric Director James Cameron is finally going to return to what made him famous. The realm of Sci-Fi. With such great pictures like Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, and Terminator 2 under his belt, I can't wait to see what he has planned. :)

Cameron Finally Left The Water
After a six-year hiatus during which he directed just two documentary films about the underwater inspections of the sunken ships The Titanic and The Bismarck, James Cameron has indicated that he will return to theatrical features with a science-fiction film to be produced later this year for 20th Century Fox. As reported by Daily Variety, Cameron made the announcement at a gathering of sci-fi buffs in Los Angeles on Tuesday. The trade publication indicated that Cameron provided little additional information about the project, which would be his first since his 1997 blockbuster Titanic grossed $1.8 billion at the worldwide box office. Cameron told his audience that he planned to shoot the film with high-definition 3-D video cameras and that it would include "a pile of special effects."
MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
01-23-2004, 04:58 PM
And may he give Bill Paxton a role in it.

I've like his earlier works, but from True Lies on, that's where I started not taking an interest in his work. But he has done some good sci-fi in the past, so I'll wait and see what comes of this.

Pendo
01-23-2004, 06:24 PM
Hmmmm. To me it sounds a little Star Warsy, possibly one of these Star Wars sequels we've been hearing about :crazed:!!!!!

I can't wait for another Cameron sci-fi flick :D. Since his Terminator franchise (IMO) has been destroyed by Terminator 3, let's hope he can come up with a new amazing franchise as a replacement :).

PENDO!

Mandalorian Candidat
01-23-2004, 07:00 PM
And may he give Bill Paxton a role in it.


So it's not "game over man" yet, huh? I thought he stopped because he went out on top and didn't want to try and top himself.

What ever he's doing I'm sure it'll make money. About everthing he touches turns to gold, unless it would be a high-$, special effects remake of From Justin to Kelly. :crazed:

Hellboy
01-23-2004, 09:36 PM
I can't wait for another Cameron sci-fi flick :D. Since his Terminator franchise (IMO) has been destroyed by Terminator 3, let's hope he can come up with a new amazing franchise as a replacement :).

PENDO!

I'm amazed that more people don't feel this way. I can't believe fans of the first 2 films excepted this rehash of T2 as a quality sequel. You could literally watch the last 5 min.'s of this movie and know everything you need until T4 comes out. Cameron was smart to pass IMO.

As far as his new project is concerned I wouldn't get to excited yet since we all know how long it takes him to complete a film. I'm betting we won't see it until at least 2006. :dis:

stillakid
01-24-2004, 02:48 AM
I'm amazed that more people don't feel this way. I can't believe fans of the first 2 films excepted this rehash of T2 as a quality sequel. You could literally watch the last 5 min.'s of this movie and know everything you need until T4 comes out. Cameron was smart to pass IMO.




I don't believe he "passed" as such. His own idea was nixed so he left the property to go do other stuff. (As I've heard it, his idea was really really good.)

2-1B
01-24-2004, 04:00 AM
What was his idea ?

stillakid
01-24-2004, 12:55 PM
What was his idea ?


It's been awhile since I heard it, so someone else may have a more accurate and complete recollection, but it had more to do with the time travel aspects of the story. The story would be flopping back and forth from the horrible future to the "present" and we would see how each "change" in the past would effect the "future" and visa versa. With that set up, we'd see how Skynet reacts to it's plans being foiled, etc. If nothing else, it gets us away from the predictable rehash of the "chase" plot that T3 dumped on screen. Plus it would have given us more of the machine-war which, I suspect, is something we'd all like to see.

But like Alien 3 before it, T3 managed to ignore and destroy the point of what Cameron painstakingly set up (in terms of plot) so unless T3 is discredited as being one big "dream sequence," then any T4 effort will be equally pointless no matter what it is.

sith_killer_99
01-24-2004, 01:10 PM
And may he give Bill Paxton a role in it.

Bill rules, and he's just as good off-screen as he ever was on-screen, can you say Frailty!

Personally, I liked the way T3 ended, but then I guess I am a bit of a fatalist. It kinda reminded me of the "The Time Machine" where the good doctor goes back and saves his love, only to have her die another way, and he says "I could save her a thousand times, and she would die each time." It really shows the paradox of the whole scenario.


The story would be flopping back and forth from the horrible future to the "present" and we would see how each "change" in the past would effect the "future" and visa versa.

I like this idea, time travel back and forth sequence. Sounds kinda like "The Butterfly Effect". I bet the execs are kicking themselves for passing on JC's idea now! I suspect The Butterfly Effect will be big. Even if it does have Kelso in it. LOL

stillakid
01-24-2004, 01:14 PM
I suspect The Butterfly Effect will be big. Even if it does have Kelso in it. LOL

I just heard a scathing review of it. Apparently, Kutcher (sp?) is horrible and the story is nearly incomprehensible. Like Back to the Future, it takes careful preparation to make something like this work.

Beast
01-24-2004, 01:18 PM
Of course, James Cameron has also said he liked the directon that T3 went in. And I don't see how T3 ignored and destroyed what Cameron set up. It just made the point that the future's not set. But that some things were inevitable. After all, it was inevitable that John Conner would lead the resistance against the machines. And no tampering of the Time Line in T1 or T2 prevented that. It was inevitable that Skynet would be created, and the War against the machines would begin. Sure the future's not set, it's changable to some extent. But some things are destined to occur. Summed up fairly well in T2, with the discussion between the T-800 and John. :)

John: We're not going to last, are we. Humans I mean.
T-800: It's in your natures to destroy yourselves.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
01-24-2004, 01:26 PM
Of course, James Cameron has also said he liked the directon that T3 went in. And I don't see how T3 ignored and destroyed what Cameron set up. It just made the point that the future's not set. But that some things were inevitable. After all, it was inevitable that John Conner would lead the resistance against the machines. And no tampering of the Time Line in T1 or T2 prevented that. It was inevitable that Skynet would be created, and the War against the machines would begin. Sure the future's not set, it's changable to some extent. But some things are destined to occur. Summed up fairly well in T2, with the discussion between the T-800 and John. :)

John: We're not going to last, are we. Humans I mean.
T-800: It's in your natures to destroy yourselves.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Yeaaahhh, to a point. But the entire plot of T2 revolved around the idea of "no fate but what we make." T3 managed to wipe that concept of Free Will out by saying that this war was inevitable no matter what efforts people made to stop it. T3 did show us (suggested anyhow) that the exact timeline of events isn't set in stone, but the final result remained the same. With the totality of the story in mind, T3 is fundamentally contradictory to the basic point of T2.

I brought up Alien 3 for the same reason. The entire point of Alien 2 boiled down to saving Newt. Having her be dead before Alien 3 even starts renders Ripley's climactic struggle at the end of Alien 2 moot. There was absolutely no point in even trying if Newt was going to die anyhow. In the same way, what is the point of seeing John Conner struggle throughout T2 when all his best efforts are for naught in the end?

sith_killer_99
01-24-2004, 01:40 PM
T2 revolved around the idea of "no fate but what we make."

I disagree, the point of T2 was that individuals can effect change. You make your own individual fate


T3 managed to wipe that concept of Free Will out by saying that this war was inevitable no matter what efforts people made to stop it.

Again, I disagree, T3 showed us that while individuals can make a difference, one person, or two or even three, can't save everyone from themselves.

John and company can only do soo much, but they can't possibly stop every stupid decision everyone makes that leads up to Judgement day. It's like trying to stop a freight train that's out of control.

These movies are more about the self destructive nature of man and how individuals can grow beyond that, but they are still just individuals.

Beast
01-24-2004, 01:45 PM
Agreed with you totally, SK99. After all, that's why Cameron changed the original 'Happy Ending' of T2 w/ Old Sarah, John, and John's Daughter in the perfect future earth to one that leaves it a mystery if they really changed anything. Remember Sarah's words at the end of the reshot ending. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
01-24-2004, 01:52 PM
I disagree, the point of T2 was that individuals can effect change. You make your own individual fate



Again, I disagree, T3 showed us that while individuals can make a difference, one person, or two or even three, can't save everyone from themselves.

John and company can only do soo much, but they can't possibly stop every stupid decision everyone makes that leads up to Judgement day. It's like trying to stop a freight train that's out of control.

These movies are more about the self destructive nature of man and how individuals can grow beyond that, but they are still just individuals.


Okay, but if you believe that, then "to what end?" Why tell a story about individuals finding redemption, or love, or whatever when the finale shows everyone dying anyway? I get that same feeling when my kids watch those Land Before Time movies. These dinosaurs have to endure many trials and tribulations to survive until the end of the film, but in the end, you know that they're all doomed anyhow. It just seems silly to me. What's the point?

So I think it's fine to tell a story about how individuals grow and adapt, but if it has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the big picture, then why bother? It's an extremely fatalistic approach which didn't play out in either end of T2 (the theatrical version or the cutscene). Both versions show that they did alter what was supposed to happen so that it was possible to avert the actions and ramifications of a larger group of people (not just individuals). T3 clumsily negates that concept, and as you both suggest, that the future is set even if individual actions temporarily "mess up" the mechanics of how we get there.

sith_killer_99
01-24-2004, 02:07 PM
Maybe the point is that, when things are at their worst, mankind is at it's best.

It's a story of survival in the end. Not everyone dies. Remember John is given the choice at the end of T3, he could have let the timer go, and avoid facing the harsh war that was about to begin. But he choose the persevere.

The story shows that we can face the hard times and survive or we can give up and die.

We choose to survive, and in an ironic twist we get the happy ending we wish to deny. Everyone say, the bombs hit and we die...we lose, but I say we win in the end, because we, as a species, have the strength to survive, despite all the bad.

I choose to view these films as the epic battle of human nature, the duality of man, his nature to survive and to destroy himself and his fellow man.

stillakid
01-24-2004, 02:18 PM
Maybe the point is that, when things are at their worst, mankind is at it's best.

It's a story of survival in the end. Not everyone dies. Remember John is given the choice at the end of T3, he could have let the timer go, and avoid facing the harsh war that was about to begin. But he choose the persevere.

The story shows that we can face the hard times and survive or we can give up and die.

We choose to survive, and in an ironic twist we get the happy ending we wish to deny. Everyone say, the bombs hit and we die...we lose, but I say we win in the end, because we, as a species, have the strength to survive, despite all the bad.

I choose to view these films as the epic battle of human nature, the duality of man, his nature to survive [B]and[B] to destroy himself and his fellow man.

Well, yes, it does all that on the individual level, but it (the story) also has the responsibility to the well-being of "humanity" as well. T1 set the stage as a battle of man vs machine (of man's own hand). The fabric of the story continues in this vein by using the individual story of Sarah (and then John) as the mechanism to tell it. The story isn't about John specifically, or Sarah...or even Aaaanold. The story is about this grand epic struggle. T1's "horror" chase genre brings the audience the story on a very personal level where we are to relate to an individual who is being singled out. Her struggle is our struggle to survive. With that stage set, T2 opens it up to the larger question of "what can we do about it?" It proceeds to tell and show us that we can do something...we aren't powerless to the demands of Predetermined Destiny. That was the entire question of T2 and it was answered with a resounding "No, we aren't bound to any predetermined future." What the theatrical ending illustrated was that this was a continuing job of humanity...that we need to maintain constant vigilance against such catastrophy occurring ever again. Apathy would be our undoing. T3 undid that and thrust us once again into the concept that no matter what we do, if something bad is fated to happen, it will, no matter what, either on an individual level or on the greater scale. It makes no difference. Cameron's concept for T3 (the timeline thing) would have been an exploration into this constant battle between what seems like "fate" and the idea that we have power over our future.

sith_killer_99
01-24-2004, 02:37 PM
Cameron's concept for T3 (the timeline thing) would have been an exploration into this constant battle between what seems like "fate" and the idea that we have power over our future.

I conceed Cameron's vision for T3 would have been better.

I just don't think T3 was as bad as some make it out to be. It think it does a great job of showing the big picture by showing us the best and worst of human nature.

But, that aside, here's another concept.

What if the big A was sent back through time to ensure the begining of the war. What if he was the "back-up plan". Maybe Skynet realized that if they failed to kill John Connor then he may stop the creation of Skynet, and they would lose anyway.

Maybe Skynet realized that after they sent the second terminator back in time. So Skynet's real goal in T3 was to ensure it's own creation, afterall, the Terminatrix was pretty concerned with Skynet there at the end.

Anyway, maybe we will all get lucky and JC will be working on T4 with his original idea for the T3 script.

LOL

2-1B
01-25-2004, 01:36 AM
stillakid, I too like the JC plot synopsis which you noted. :)

I still really like T3 and think it's awesome.

Yes it's a rehash of T2 but I think T2 is in many ways a rehash of T1.

Why didn't Reese just go back in time to attempt the destruction of Skynet himself?
Who cares about John Connor, anyway? :D I'm serious - if they would have just focused on eliminating the problem itself, they could care less about whether that kid or his mom lived.

The whole point behind T1 is that the war IS coming. Sarah Connor HAS to survive to birth John who in the future will lead in the war that IS coming. The ending of T1 is great because it sets that up perfectly. Then T2 comes along and paints a rosy picture of "no fate but what we make" which is a warm and fuzzy thought . . . but in reality it's a joke because there is no way that everyone is going to work together to prevent Skynet.

Skynet knows its creation is inevitable and that's why they go after John in T2 just as they did to his mother in T1.

If anything, with a bit of rewriting I think T2 could be totally thrown out and T3 could have made a fine original sequel.

As for the general thread topic of James Cameron, I'm not a huge fan of his but I definitely do enjoy some of his work. Everyone talks about him as a director but I like some of his story/writing credits as well: especially Strange Days and also Rambo First Blood Part II. No, I'm not joking there - I know it's not exactly epic filmmaking but I still love it and think it's got a tight story. Sure the action is over the top and often cartoony / superheroic . . . but I always loved the way the character of John Rambo was written and of course played by Stallone.

No doubt about it, Stallone has made some poor film choices over the years and in many roles he is a big ol' ham but Rambo always intrigued me. The first film is a masterpiece, IMHO. The breakdown he gives at the end of the film is an INCREDIBLE payoff.

While First Blood had all of the political and social allegory, part 2 was criticized for turning Rambo into a comic book character. I understand some of that and think it's valid but the script which Cameron worked on still retained some of the humanity that the character showed in the first film. So I say kudos to Cameron, Cosmatos, and everyone else who worked on that movie.

I think what it basically comes down to for me is that First Blood was primarily a film which looked at and within America by itself and it's more thought provoking. Rambo 2 and 3 are more cut-and-dry Cold War "us vs. them", "we good, they bad" with third party players like the Vietnamese and Afghanis also involved.
The script for Rambo 2 still manages to sneak in some snippets of what was seen in the first film.

stillakid, I can't decide if I agree with you or not regarding Aliens and Newt's survival. My initial response is to agree with you but I think I say that easily because I hate Alien 3 to begin with :D . . . I'll get back to you.

Hellboy
01-27-2004, 01:51 AM
I think Cameron's concept sounds pretty interesting. Anything but the same basic premise of T2 would have been an improvement though as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree with some of the points stillakid makes about the characters having absolutely no effect whatsoever on the big picture and how it contradicts some of the points established in T2 but disagree with the comparison of T3 to Alien 3. Where T3 fails is in it's ability to show the viewer something they haven't seen before. Regardless whether you like Alien 3 or not at least it dared to be original. Sure Newt dies at the beginning but I disagree that this makes Ripley's climactic struggle in Aliens moot it only makes the events surrounding Newt's fate that much more tragic. Alien 3 succeeded in providing a different experience but kept the underlying story of Ripley's struggle with the beast and the corporations relentless desire to harness it. The irony is that Ripley, Newt, and Hicks lost their lives the moment they entered their cryo-chambers because the Alien was already onboard the ship. Ripley's ultimate sacrifice at the end was her way of making sure the Alien and the corporations didn't control her fate, she did. While some people may enjoy T3 the fact remains that it serves as little more than setup for T4 and John Connor ultimately had no control over his destiny.

stillakid
01-27-2004, 10:40 AM
I think Cameron's concept sounds pretty interesting. Anything but the same basic premise of T2 would have been an improvement though as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree with some of the points stillakid makes about the characters having absolutely no effect whatsoever on the big picture and how it contradicts some of the points established in T2 but disagree with the comparison of T3 to Alien 3. Where T3 fails is in it's ability to show the viewer something they haven't seen before. Regardless whether you like Alien 3 or not at least it dared to be original. Sure Newt dies at the beginning but I disagree that this makes Ripley's climactic struggle in Aliens moot it only makes the events surrounding Newt's fate that much more tragic. Alien 3 succeeded in providing a different experience but kept the underlying story of Ripley's struggle with the beast and the corporations relentless desire to harness it. The irony is that Ripley, Newt, and Hicks lost their lives the moment they entered their cryo-chambers because the Alien was already onboard the ship. Ripley's ultimate sacrifice at the end was her way of making sure the Alien and the corporations didn't control her fate, she did. While some people may enjoy T3 the fact remains that it serves as little more than setup for T4 and John Connor ultimately had no control over his destiny.

The point of destroying Cyberdyne was to eliminate the research facility that was building the new technology. That was to "destroy" the possibility of the war in terms of the big picture. To bring the story back down to a more intimate level, we see John toss in the chip and the hand. Then, if that wasn't enough, to really personalize the struggle, we see that John managed to bring a bit of humanity to an otherwise cold and heartless machine when it (Arnold) chooses to kill himself. So we had three separate incidents in one film to hammer home the idea that this could be stopped...that humanity had the choice to change potentially destructive actions.

T3 disregards all of that and suggests that the research was occurring elsewhere as well. Imagine Star Wars ANH with an ending wherein Luke and Co. blow up the Death Star and have their celebration...then from out of nowhere, a second Death Star appears from out of hyperspace and blows Yavin to smithereens. It's a "oh, we fooled you!" moment to the audience which is fundamentally unfair.

I'll await Caesar's response to Alien 3 before defending my position on it. :)

Beast
01-27-2004, 04:11 PM
True, but remember in the original Timeline it wasn't the chip or the arm that caused Skynet's creation. So destroying those just effected that aspect of the timeline. Cyberdine probably had off sight computer back-ups for all it's research that Miles Dyson didn't know about. So by destroying the chip and the arm, it didn't prevent the creation of Skynet. Because it had been built in the first place, without the tampering/artifacts from the future. So merely destroying the research and the items, didn't stop it's creation. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
01-27-2004, 04:31 PM
True, but remember in the original Timeline it wasn't the chip or the arm that caused Skynet's creation. So destroying those just effected that aspect of the timeline. Cyberdine probably had off sight computer back-ups for all it's research that Miles Dyson didn't know about. So by destroying the chip and the arm, it didn't prevent the creation of Skynet. Because it had been built in the first place, without the tampering/artifacts from the future. So merely destroying the research and the items, didn't stop it's creation. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks


Yes, this is what T3 implies and this is exactly what I was getting at with the 11th hour "trick" pulled on the audience. T1 sets up the Skynet creation process by dropping the chip and a partial Terminator part into the past. T2 follows up on the ramifications of that "accident" by having the heroes go through trials and tribulations to destroy them. That's what the plot of T2 was all about...by first destroying the result of that event (Cyberdyne and Myles himself, who we are meant to believe is the one who knew most about the project...ie, killing him essentially kills the project), and then destroying the articles in question erases the possibility that Skynet can ever be created with this specific cause and effect scenario. Nowhere in T1 or T2 does it ever imply or suggest that there might be lingering "research" or parts anywhere else to contend with. Doing so would have diluted the dramatic plotline of T2 unnecessarily. Imagine a story in which they dramatically and explosively destroy Cyberdyne, then the chip, then the hand, and just before Aaaanold goes for a swim, he says "Oh, yeah, there's another few buildings and people we have to kill first." It took 2 hours to get to that point in the film. Time for an intermission, eh? :ermm:

So, T3 still negates all that was fought for in T2...and for what? For the chance to have a hot-chick run around screen for a couple hours. Not that there is anything wrong with that part of it, but had T2 even hinted at the idea that there would be "off site" research going on or anything at all, then two things would have occurred: 1) T3 would then become valid, and 2) as mentioned, the dramatic appeal of T2 would be diluted and arguably ruined.

Exhaust Port
01-27-2004, 09:01 PM
T3 disregards all of that and suggests that the research was occurring elsewhere as well. Imagine Star Wars ANH with an ending wherein Luke and Co. blow up the Death Star and have their celebration...then from out of nowhere, a second Death Star appears from out of hyperspace and blows Yavin to smithereens.
Oh man, wouldn't that have been a shocker. Of course, GL probably has more suprises for us in the Archival Editions. Not only does Greedo shoot first but the Empire has a fleet of DS. :)


I'll await Caesar's response to Alien 3 before defending my position on it. :)
Alien 3? Ugh, that movie sucked!!! Killed off the characters from Aliens? Why, oh why!

stillakid
01-27-2004, 11:47 PM
Oh man, wouldn't that have been a shocker. Of course, GL probably has more suprises for us in the Archival Editions. Not only does Greedo shoot first but the Empire has a fleet of DS. :)


Great balls o' Fire! :eek:

billfremore
01-28-2004, 01:01 PM
Nice to see that Cameron will now once again grace us with his presence now that he's all finished being "King of the World" :rolleyes:

2-1B
02-21-2010, 08:57 PM
Don't worry billfremore, I guarantee you that this next Cameron movie will be a total flop.

El Chuxter
02-21-2010, 10:34 PM
I'd just like him to release another one like Terminator 2 or Aliens, where everyone doesn't say, "Its visually impressive, but doesn't have much story."

JimJamBonds
02-25-2010, 07:43 AM
Don't worry billfremore, I guarantee you that this next Cameron movie will be a total flop.

I TOTALLY agree with 2-1b on this one.