The_Lhc
Well-known member
It depends on who you ask and whether you adjust for inflation or not, either way Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is actually the most expensive film ever made, Avatar "officially" (whatever that means) cost $237million, POTC:AWE topped $300m. In the non-adjusted figures Avatar is only 4th (Spider-Man 3 and Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince both cost more, supposedly).
Avatar's going to be difficult to calculate though, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
Avatar's going to be difficult to calculate though, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
[Hstone28:
Not updated with Avarat yet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films
Would be Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End then
Thanks for that.
Not updated with Avarat yet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films
Would be Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End then
the_lhc:
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
gel:the_lhc:
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
Bit like Guns N Roses Chinese Democracy
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
Bit like Guns N Roses Chinese Democracy
The_Lhc
Well-known member
gel:the_lhc:
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
Cameron came up with the story for Avatar before he shot Titanic, but he couldn't actually film it until the technology had caught up with his "vision". A large par tof the intervening period was taken up with developing the technology until he could actually get what he wanted on the screen.
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
Cameron came up with the story for Avatar before he shot Titanic, but he couldn't actually film it until the technology had caught up with his "vision". A large par tof the intervening period was taken up with developing the technology until he could actually get what he wanted on the screen.
the_lhc:gel:the_lhc:
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
Cameron came up with the story for Avatar before he shot Titanic, but he couldn't actually film it until the technology had caught up with his "vision". A large par tof the intervening period was taken up with developing the technology until he could actually get what he wanted on the screen.
Are we talking about "vision" being 3D?
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
Cameron came up with the story for Avatar before he shot Titanic, but he couldn't actually film it until the technology had caught up with his "vision". A large par tof the intervening period was taken up with developing the technology until he could actually get what he wanted on the screen.
Are we talking about "vision" being 3D?
the_lhc:Cameron came up with the story for Avatar before he shot Titanic, but he couldn't actually film it until the technology had caught up with his "vision". A large par tof the intervening period was taken up with developing the technology until he could actually get what he wanted on the screen.
So the myth behind it is a load of pretentious old twaddle, too? Figures...
So the myth behind it is a load of pretentious old twaddle, too? Figures...
John Duncan
Well-known member
gel:the_lhc:gel:the_lhc:
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
Cameron came up with the story for Avatar before he shot Titanic, but he couldn't actually film it until the technology had caught up with his "vision". A large par tof the intervening period was taken up with developing the technology until he could actually get what he wanted on the screen.
Are we talking about "vision" being 3D?
No 3D is old. It's about Na'vi people so they can look real (Blue creatures in the movie)
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
Cameron came up with the story for Avatar before he shot Titanic, but he couldn't actually film it until the technology had caught up with his "vision". A large par tof the intervening period was taken up with developing the technology until he could actually get what he wanted on the screen.
Are we talking about "vision" being 3D?
No 3D is old. It's about Na'vi people so they can look real (Blue creatures in the movie)
stone28:No 3D is old. It's about Na'vi people so they can look real (Blue creatures in the movie)
Could have saved millions and shot it in black and white, then...
Could have saved millions and shot it in black and white, then...
Andrew Everard:
stone28:No 3D is old. It's about Na'vi people so they can look real (Blue creatures in the movie)
Could have saved millions and shot it in black and white, then...
What I meant is that he wasn't waiting for 3D technology to catch up us much as for CGI to get to the next level...(he has right now - together with two other BIG directors) the most powerful computer in the business.
stone28:No 3D is old. It's about Na'vi people so they can look real (Blue creatures in the movie)
Could have saved millions and shot it in black and white, then...
What I meant is that he wasn't waiting for 3D technology to catch up us much as for CGI to get to the next level...(he has right now - together with two other BIG directors) the most powerful computer in the business.
OK he was working on his super new Stereoscopic 3D Camera as well. But the main thing was for CGI to be able to create the world that you wouldn't be able to distinguish for the real life. That was something Cameron wonted for that movie from the beginning. So everything will look real not like computer generated animation (faces, movements, etc.. and that's why the blue creatures are not computer generated but they are real actors playing their parts and then computer makes them blue (of course that is really simplified version of what really is happening there)
stone28:Andrew Everard:
stone28:No 3D is old. It's about Na'vi people so they can look real (Blue creatures in the movie)
Could have saved millions and shot it in black and white, then...
What I meant is that he wasn't waiting for 3D technology to catch up us much as for CGI to get to the next level...(he has right now - together with two other BIG directors) the most powerful computer in the business.
Stone28 I have just been checking out your system, it's very nice are you happy with it?
Thanks
stone28:No 3D is old. It's about Na'vi people so they can look real (Blue creatures in the movie)
Could have saved millions and shot it in black and white, then...
What I meant is that he wasn't waiting for 3D technology to catch up us much as for CGI to get to the next level...(he has right now - together with two other BIG directors) the most powerful computer in the business.
Stone28 I have just been checking out your system, it's very nice are you happy with it?
Thanks
gel:
Stone28 I have just been checking out your system, it's very nice are you happy with it?
Thanks
Pretty fresh stuff (2 weeks so not much I can say) OK TV is with me the longest (10 months I think). Other then that I am still wetting my pants (I am so happy by just having it). And as it may surprise you the thing which makes me happy the most is my Popcorn Hour. No, but really I am really happy but like I've said really new toys so need some more time - especially for the speakers to run-in (as I presume)
Stone28 I have just been checking out your system, it's very nice are you happy with it?
Thanks
Pretty fresh stuff (2 weeks so not much I can say) OK TV is with me the longest (10 months I think). Other then that I am still wetting my pants (I am so happy by just having it). And as it may surprise you the thing which makes me happy the most is my Popcorn Hour. No, but really I am really happy but like I've said really new toys so need some more time - especially for the speakers to run-in (as I presume)
JohnDuncan:They said that about Wagner's Ring. Or if they didn't, I'm saying it now.
I believe that's covered extensively in this classic tome....
I believe that's covered extensively in this classic tome....
John Duncan
Well-known member
robjcooper
Well-known member
gel:gel:the_lhc:
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
Bit like Guns N Roses Chinese Democracy
And probably just as much of a letdown !
At least Celine Dion isn't caterwauling on Cameron's latest outing !
, it's been in development for 15 years and the final figure won't necessarily include the costs of developing all the technology required to shoot it.
15 years why so long?
Bit like Guns N Roses Chinese Democracy
And probably just as much of a letdown !
At least Celine Dion isn't caterwauling on Cameron's latest outing !
stone28:Pretty fresh stuff (2 weeks so not much I can say) OK TV is with me the longest (10 months I think). Other then that I am still wetting my pants (I am so happy by just having it). And as it may surprise you the thing which makes me happy the most is my Popcorn Hour. No, but really I am really happy but like I've said really new toys so need some more time - especially for the speakers to run-in (as I presume)
I like your choice of gear was there a specific reason for that particular blu ray player and not a more recent one? How is the amp going?, what about the blu ray discs? I bet you are really noticing a big change in picture and sound?
I like your choice of gear was there a specific reason for that particular blu ray player and not a more recent one? How is the amp going?, what about the blu ray discs? I bet you are really noticing a big change in picture and sound?
gel:I like your choice of gear was there a specific reason for that particular blu ray player and not a more recent one? How is the amp going?, what about the blu ray discs? I bet you are really noticing a big change in picture and sound?
Choice of gear? I was corrupted by What Hi-FI magazine ;-) And I LOVE The design of the Tannoy Speakers and Pioneer's stuff as well. Then by reading that they are great at the same time (not only looking good) I wanted to have them even more ;-). I just love simple straight lines of all of them starting with the TV. For me simpler is better when it comes to the design. BD player - hmm, bought it together with the TV so when it was recent one ;-) Now I would go of course for the 52 (with free 16GB iPOD!!!) But what's the point if I have one already. Was I blown away? I don't think so.. I mean picture - ohh MAN!!! LOVE it. With sound... I think I need to give some time to my speakers. I had surround sound with my all in one DENON DVD system as well and you could here things behind so still waiting for something (sound-wise) to blow me away.. Hopefully in a few weeks time when speakers will reach their full potential. Watched StarTrek (loved it) and if not the picture (but even with (DVD's its great - that screen is amazing) I think you could persuade me that it was DVD.. Or my DVD setup was just the best you could get (which of course is wasn't but it was really nice.. by the way have to do something with it now ;-)).
Choice of gear? I was corrupted by What Hi-FI magazine ;-) And I LOVE The design of the Tannoy Speakers and Pioneer's stuff as well. Then by reading that they are great at the same time (not only looking good) I wanted to have them even more ;-). I just love simple straight lines of all of them starting with the TV. For me simpler is better when it comes to the design. BD player - hmm, bought it together with the TV so when it was recent one ;-) Now I would go of course for the 52 (with free 16GB iPOD!!!) But what's the point if I have one already. Was I blown away? I don't think so.. I mean picture - ohh MAN!!! LOVE it. With sound... I think I need to give some time to my speakers. I had surround sound with my all in one DENON DVD system as well and you could here things behind so still waiting for something (sound-wise) to blow me away.. Hopefully in a few weeks time when speakers will reach their full potential. Watched StarTrek (loved it) and if not the picture (but even with (DVD's its great - that screen is amazing) I think you could persuade me that it was DVD.. Or my DVD setup was just the best you could get (which of course is wasn't but it was really nice.. by the way have to do something with it now ;-)).
stone28:Choice of gear? I was corrupted by What Hi-FI magazine ;-)
I could see that you got alot of your ideas from what hi fi's mag's. ie amp and speaker match, hdmi cable etc.
It's very cool and thanks for discussing it.
I could see that you got alot of your ideas from what hi fi's mag's. ie amp and speaker match, hdmi cable etc.
It's very cool and thanks for discussing it.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
stone28:Was I blown away? I don't think so.. I mean picture - ohh MAN!!! LOVE it. With sound... I think I need to give some time to my speakers. I had surround sound with my all in one DENON DVD system as well and you could here things behind so still waiting for something (sound-wise) to blow me away.. Hopefully in a few weeks time when speakers will reach their full potential.
Are you saying you don't hear any surround effects with your new gear? Have you run all the calibration on the amp n' stuff? The speakers not being run in won't prevent you from hearing the rear channels if it's all properly set up.
Are you saying you don't hear any surround effects with your new gear? Have you run all the calibration on the amp n' stuff? The speakers not being run in won't prevent you from hearing the rear channels if it's all properly set up.
gel:stone28:Choice of gear? I was corrupted by What Hi-FI magazine ;-)
I could see that you got alot of your ideas from what hi fi's mag's. ie amp and speaker match, hdmi cable etc.
It's very cool and thanks for discussing it.
Thanks gel. You have yourself pretty nice kit as well
I could see that you got alot of your ideas from what hi fi's mag's. ie amp and speaker match, hdmi cable etc.
It's very cool and thanks for discussing it.
Thanks gel. You have yourself pretty nice kit as well
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Is hi-fi really getting better? Our technical editor ponders its progression
- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram