Support NeoGAF

[Wollan]

I didn't know Benjamin Button was CG before after having seen the film and being informed by Gaf. I thought there was some face-pasted-onto child trickery (brad pits face in make up that it is) when walking around. I believe I can see some of the CG of it now when I'm aware but I was 100% tricked and would probably still be in that state if not informed.

 

[Solo]

I still think there's going to be a lot of confused people thinking this is Shymalanan's film.

Why would any (non-nerd, non-comic reader, non-internet forum reader; AKA 99% of the movie going public) person be confused? There is one teaser for M Night's movie, and its clearly called The Last Airbender. No mention of Avatar at all. No one is going to be confused.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

I didn't know Benjamin Button was CG before after having seen the film and being informed by Gaf. I thought there was some face-pasted-onto child trickery (brad pits face in make up that it is) when walking around. I believe I can see some of the CG of it now when I'm aware but I was 100% tricked and would probably still be in that state if not informed.

Yeah, Fincher is a MASTER of special effects.
Watching the featurettes on the zodiac dvd is MINDBLOWING.

 

[near]

Yeah, Fincher is a MASTER of special effects.
Watching the featurettes on the zodiac dvd is MINDBLOWING.

Zodiac had special effects? Really?

 

[duckroll]

Zodiac had special effects? Really?

The backgrounds in Zodiac were pretty much entirely CG.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

Zodiac had special effects? Really?

Like I said, MINDBLOWING.

 

[near]

Damn! Totally did not know this, or even notice in the slightest. Thats pretty impressive.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2xhBSfFps

 

[Koodo]

Why would any (non-nerd, non-comic reader, non-internet forum reader; AKA 99% of the movie going public) person be confused? There is one teaser for M Night's movie, and its clearly called The Last Airbender. No mention of Avatar at all. No one is going to be confused.

Which is based on a cartoon show that is clearly called Avatar as well. I've already seen people confusing this for the live-action adaption of the cartoon, and they didn't quite fall into any of the categories you mentioned.

Yes, it won't be widespread, but there will be confusion. Fox's horrendously atrocious marketing thus far has done nothing to remedy this (well, to be fair, they haven't done anything at all).

 

[Solo]

Which is based on a cartoon show that is clearly called Avatar as well.

Sure, but your average movie goer isnt going to know that its based off a cartoon, let alone that they changed the title from said cartoon.

 

[harryz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2xhBSfFps

Ah, I was looking for that video, cheers. The opening shot of San Francisco at night and the daytime shot of San Francisco coming from the coast are amazing, I had no idea it was all CG when I watched it. Fincher really should make another Sci-Fi movie.

 

[Busty]

How do you become a member of Imax Cinemas is it the same as being a BFI member?

By members of IMAX cinemas do they mean BFI members?

I'm not sure to be honest. I imagine that if it's not that it might be the local cinemas 'loyalty card' scheme.

Though they don't have IMAX screens (AFAIK) Cineworld has the 'Unlimited Card' for example. It could be something like that.

Sorry I don't have more details.

 

[jett]

There's a weird misconception about the Davy Jones character and its quality. He looks so real because he is real. All they did is apply some CGI mask over the actor. All the really relevant data is directly taken from the actor, the lighting and the movement. Except some tentacles. It's basically just adding some layers to the actors body while extracting all the information that is ultimately making it looking so convincing from the real human object underneath.

There's a huge difference between this and creatures that have a different (non-human) physiognomy, that isn't just Star Trek-like additive stuff. Since the movement, weight and lighting data has to be artificially created they look nowhere near as convincing if there's no real object underneath for reference. All these other, more grotesque Pirate character's already look way worse because of that.

Now I don't know how Cameron's aliens will look like but there's basically the choice between looking convincing like Davy Jones, but then they can't be that different from humans or they look alien and these aspects that make them look different won't feel as real.

 

[Lord Error]

WTF is that shit indeed. Jean-Claude Picard, you couldn't be more wrong in your assumption that Davy Jones' character is real. Not only is he not some digital paint-over the face of the real actor, but every single thing about him is 100% CG. Body, face, clothes, absolutely everything. On a set he was a guy in a blue suit, just like any regular mocap actor, then everything was rendered and composed into the scene. Furthermore, no lighting was picked up from a real actor, like they could do in Benjamin Button for example.

It's also completely wrong to assume that they had easier job to do because he's more humanoid looking - the job was that much more difficult for that particular reason. It's a lot easier to create convincing non-humanoid characters as we don't have any familiarity about what they are supposed to look like and move, and the only reason some other members of Davy's crew don't look as good is because they paid a particular attention on his quality, with him being one of the main characters.

Also, CG- No Make-up

Scene found on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8xs3mrF7VI

Briefly during the third film, Jones appears as a human for a single scene, played by Nighy in costume. Many reviewers have in fact mistakenly identified Nighy as wearing prosthetic makeup due to the computer-generated character's photorealism[9][10].

OK, in that one scene that was probably the real actor. The quote says that it was his mocap actor there, wearing the Davy costume from what I can tell, and I think the next sentence talks about the character in general being mistaken for an actor with prosthetics.

 

[Jean-Claude Picard]

WTF is that shit indeed. Jean-Claude Picard, you couldn't be more wrong in your assumption that Davy Jones' character is real. Not only is he not some digital paint-over the face of the real actor, but every single thing about him is 100% CG. Body, face, clothes, absolutely everything. On a set he was a guy in a blue suit, just like any regular mocap actor, then everything was rendered and composed into the scene. Furthermore, no lighting was picked up from a real actor, like they could do in Benjamin Button for example.

It's also completely wrong to assume that they had easier job to do because he's more humanoid looking - the job was that much more difficult for that particular reason. It's a lot easier to create convincing non-humanoid characters as we don't have any familiarity about what they are supposed to look like and move, and the only reason some other members of Davy's crew don't look as good is because they paid a particular attention on his quality, with him being one of the main characters.

Why did they use a real person in the first place? Because as I said he was the model for the CGI replacement and without the real data of the actor the CGI would not look as good.
Take his eyes for example. What's the point of saying "This is incredible CGI!" if it's basically the actor's eyes redone with CGI? Replacing something real with the CGI version of it is not a big feat. With a real actor underneath you have such a solid basis that you can add quite a lot of CGI unto him and still have him feel real.

Now the less the actor and the final CGI match the harder it becomes making it look real. The biggest problem of todays CGI is the animation. You can have a bad looking CGI skin, put it over realistic animation data and have a convincing result. Or vice versa.
The CGI of Davy Jones is not what is special. It isn't and it wouldn't make sense because we would've seen it in other movies. What's so great is how they replaced and enhanced a real actor with it, adjusting it just enough to not get into the Hulk/King Kong/Gollum zone. Try applying an actor's data to something non-humanoid and as additive and watch the result collapse in terms of quality.

 

[Lord Error]

Why did they use a real person in the first place? Because as I said he was the model for the CGI replacement and without the real data of the actor the CGI would not look as good.

The point is that they need motion data. Every CG character in movies has a real person acting them out, Avatar included. The big blue creatures still have actors doing mocap, and their faces will also bear some likeness to their actors, they are no different in that regard.

Take his eyes for example. What's the point of saying "This is incredible CGI!" if it's basically the actor's eyes redone with CGI? Replacing something real with the CGI version of it is not a big feat.

If you really believe this, I don't know what to say. It's just not true - making convincing looking humanoid is incredibly daunting task, and has always been seen as a pie in the sky goal among the CG authors.

The CGI of Davy Jones is not what is special. It isn't and it wouldn't make sense because we would've seen it in other movies.

We don't see it in other movies precisely because its so difficult and time consuming (meaning, expensive) to make. Director of the movie didn't even believe they could pull it off until he's seen test results and was proven otherwise. Gollum was just made with inferior tech, and arguably with inferior (at the time) team behind it. Otherwise, it would have been much easier to make it look more convincing with today's rendering tech.

 

[Jean-Claude Picard]

The point is that they need motion data. Every CG character in movies has a real person acting them out, Avatar included. The big blue creatures still have actors doing mocap, and their faces will also bear some likeness to their actors, they are no different in that regard.

If you really believe this, I don't know what to say. It's just not true - making convincing looking humanoid is incredibly daunting task, and has always been seen as a pie in the sky goal among the CG authors.

We don't see it in other movies precisely because its so difficult and time consuming (meaning, expensive) to make. Director of the movie didn't even believe they could pull it off until he's seen test results and was proven otherwise. Gollum was just made with inferior tech, and arguably with inferior (at the time) team behind it. Otherwise, it would have been much easier to make it look more convincing with today's rendering tech.

No, we don't see it because most directors want something more extreme which results in the examples already mentioned. Gollum's problem is not the textures, the lighting or any details of his CGI hull. His biggest problem is that they had insufficient reference data for him because a fat, solid person with a human face was taken as input for his movement, gestures and facial expressions.
The goal for virtual creatures is not to have some motion capturing guy doing all the work in front of a blue screen. It's to create all the data you need in an artificial way. Instead of having an actual person perform any physical task you have a solid computer simulation of a given set of physical attributes which can do anything you want.

 

[Lord Error]

No, we don't see it because most directors want something more extreme which results in the examples already mentioned. Gollum's problem is not the textures, the lighting or any details of his CGI hull. His biggest problem is that they had insufficient reference data for him because a fat, solid person with a human face was taken as input for his movement, gestures and facial expressions.

By the same token you could argue that they didn't have any motion input data for Davy's tentacles either, and yet those looked perfectly convincingly animated as well. I also strongly disagree that lighting on Gollum wasn't the problem. It was, lighting and shaders of the time simply weren't up to the task.

The goal for virtual creatures is not to have some motion capturing guy doing all the work in front of a blue screen. It's to create all the data you need in an artificial way.

That's a different set of problems, which doesn't need solving as much because for near humanoid creatures it's easier to use mocap, and for those fantastical enough, they can be animated easier to be more convincing due to our unfamiliarity with them.

Again, if you are trying to argue that making convincing fantastical creatures is more difficult than making convincing humanoid or near-humanoid ones, you probably haven't talked to anyone making this kind of stuff.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I just read this quote in an interview when Worthington describes a conversation he had with Cameron after signing onto the movie.

I'll do whatever you need me to do to sell your fucking movie, he told Cameron. I'll call my first kid fucking "Avatar" if you want me to, if that helps you sell it.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/sam-worthington-quotes-0909-3#ixzz0Ndv1fLM7

:lol

 

[midwestern_stylings]

this whole members only thing for the uk is absolute bollocks, plus it would make no sense what so ever

 

[mario ate my burger]

this whole members only thing for the uk is absolute bollocks, plus it would make no sense what so ever

What do you mean?

 

[StuBurns]

What do you mean?

Members only access to the preview in the UK.
Though I'm not sure it's a fact yet.

I don't think it makes no sense though, I think it makes no sense to allow everyone to walk into the cinema for free to watch a preview myself.

 

[midwestern_stylings]

The idea of Avatar day is to let audiences see this 15 minute preview in order to generate buzz and excitement among people that currently don't know much about Avatar. What would be the point in restricting it to the one group of people that don't need Avatar selling to them, the one group that will be there day one with or without this preview? It makes no sense. Where did this rumour originate?

 

[StuBurns]

The idea of Avatar day is to let audiences see this 15 minute preview in order to generate buzz and excitement among people that currently don't know much about Avatar. What would be the point in restricting it to the one group of people that don't need Avatar selling to them, the one group that will be there day one with or without this preview? It makes no sense. Where did this rumour originate?

And who is going to go to the previews? Do you really think anyone who isn't already going to see the movie is going to travel to a cinema to see a preview?

 

[sasimirobot]

How do I go about finding the preview listings in Tokyo, is there going to be one? Google turns up nothing..

 

[midwestern_stylings]

Well, if the preview is correctly advertised, yes, I think people would be curious enough to go. And even if only one non-member turned up, thats still one more than if they restricted it. All I'm saying is that restricting a FREE preview to members only serves no purpose, and does not help to get word out about the film.

 

[StuBurns]

How do I go about finding the preview listings in Tokyo, is there going to be one? Google turns up nothing..

There isn't an IMAX in Tokyo.

 

[Krev]

In locations without an IMAX, the preview is being shown in standard digital 3D cinemas.

 

[mario ate my burger]

Is there even an IMAX in Ireland?

Looks like there was one, but it was closed down.

Shit

 

[adamsappel]

Sure, but your average movie goer isnt going to know that its based off a cartoon, let alone that they changed the title from said cartoon.

So, you're saying the "non-nerd, non-comic reader, non-internet forum reader" is going to be more familiar with the New James Cameron Sci-Fi Project, rather than the popular cartoon that they've probably seen their kid watch?

 

[agrajag]

Wait, people think Davey Jones looks better than Gollum? Gollum is by far the most convincing/impressive CG character ever created, he still is. When you watch those movies, you don't even think of him as a CG character, just as another creature/actor/character.

 

[Memphis Reigns]

So is the actual trailer going to be showing up on TV starting 8/21 or is it strictly for the internet community?

 

[duckroll]

Wait, people think Davey Jones looks better than Gollum? Gollum is by far the most convincing/impressive CG character ever created, he still is. When you watch those movies, you don't even think of him as a CG character, just as another creature/actor/character.

Maybe you don't. I think it's pretty obvious he's CG. Better than Jar Jar, but not really revolutionary. I mean it's a pretty solid effort for a fantasy movie series, but he certainly doesn't look anything close to a practical effect.

 

[jett]

Wait, people think Davey Jones looks better than Gollum? Gollum is by far the most convincing/impressive CG character ever created, he still is. When you watch those movies, you don't even think of him as a CG character, just as another creature/actor/character.

Davey Jones is way better looking than Gollum. Way better.

 

[Solo]

So, you're saying the "non-nerd, non-comic reader, non-internet forum reader" is going to be more familiar with the New James Cameron Sci-Fi Project, rather than the popular cartoon that they've probably seen their kid watch?

No, Im saying that the public will see a movie called Avatar, and a movie called The Last Airbender, and not be confused. I know its fun to say LOL masses, but jesus, people arent this dumb.

 

[critch]

No, Im saying that the public will see a movie called Avatar, and a movie called The Last Airbender, and not be confused. I know its fun to say LOL masses, but jesus, people arent this dumb.

It's been a popular show on Nick for years and supposedly one of the best cartoons in a while. The show is called AVATAR: The last Airbender. It's been well advertised. The trailer for the movie, which only drops the first word, has been in theatres for months and played before the biggest movies of the summer.

On the flip side, No one outside of comic con has ever heard of Cameron's Avatar, and Avatar Day isn't exactly going to do much for it. I have no faith in Fox to do any sort of advertising worth a damn, considering the lack of big movies that have some crossover (Seriously, the biggest movie before Avatar is fucking New Moon) and the usual difficulty of selling a hardcore sci-fi movie no matter how good it is. Look at what happened with Moon, and District 9 will be extremely lucky to hit 100 mil no matter how good it is.

Maybe it's just cause I worked at a movie theatre a long time ago and remember just how dumb the usual populace is. There is going to be some confusion, sad, but true. The name of the movie should have been changed to Pandora or something.

 

[Krev]

Look at what happened with Moon

...an indie success story that has catapulted its director's career in a big way and is still going strong?

 

[Dabookerman]

Davey Jones is way better looking than Gollum. Way better.

This is true since Gollum came out before the first POTC ;p

However, Gollum was a landmark, because the character was the first to use sub surface scattering for the textures, which is why at the time, it looked so impressive.

I wonder if they will improve the realism/CG for the BIG blu ray release?

 

[pringles]

Maybe you don't. I think it's pretty obvious he's CG. Better than Jar Jar, but not really revolutionary. I mean it's a pretty solid effort for a fantasy movie series, but he certainly doesn't look anything close to a practical effect.

"pretty solid effort", "not really revolutionary" and comparisons to Jar-Jar? What the hell man?
Gollum was revolutionary. There's a reason why James Cameron said that the moment he realized Avatar was possible was when he saw The Two Towers.
Before that CG characters had never been convincing enough that they could act alongside real actors with the audience completely buying it.

Not to mention the methods used in creating Gollum were pretty revolutionary too.

 

[Lord Error]

Gollum was revolutionary, no question about it. Jump from Jar Jar which looked disgusting conceptually and technically, to something you could empathize with, cannot be understated. Having said that, it still looked very much like CG and not comparable to physical being of a man in a costume with the mask, like Davy Jones, or later Benjamin Button did.

 

[Resettito]

Gollum still looks impressive to me, I watched the Return Of The King one more time recently and it still holds up pretty well. Now I'm really excited to see the trailer for this, I'm expecting to be mindblown like everybody here I guess.

 

[jett]

This is true since Gollum came out before the first POTC ;p

However, Gollum was a landmark, because the character was the first to use sub surface scattering for the textures, which is why at the time, it looked so impressive.

I wonder if they will improve the realism/CG for the BIG blu ray release?

To me Gollum was a landmark because it was the first well acted, oscar-caliber digital character/performance, more than any technical stuff.

 

[Wollan]

Gollum was the biggest effect jump since Jurassic Park imo (by miles). Now it's all about perfecting that.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Yeah anybody who doesn't think Gollum was a jump is kidding themselves. Its obviously CG, but in terms of believability of performance, it was a huge jump.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Yeah, the achievement with Gollum still blows me away to this day, the complete realization of a CG character beyond just a CG effort but a fully realized treated character to boot.

Amazing that it's already been 6 years from Return of the King, 7 from The Two Towers when we first saw the complete Gollum, looks incredible with what they did.

 

[cuyahoga]

It's been a popular show on Nick for years and supposedly one of the best cartoons in a while. The show is called AVATAR: The last Airbender. It's been well advertised. The trailer for the movie, which only drops the first word, has been in theatres for months and played before the biggest movies of the summer.

On the flip side, No one outside of comic con has ever heard of Cameron's Avatar, and Avatar Day isn't exactly going to do much for it.

This is incorrect. People outside of Comic-Con have heard of Avatar, and I've talked with at least ten people about the film. The Last Airbender seems less likely to succeed than Cameron's film, IMO.

 

[FirewalkR]

This is incorrect. People outside of Comic-Con have heard of Avatar, and I've talked with at least ten people about the film. The Last Airbender seems less likely to succeed than Cameron's film, IMO.

Everyone I know that knows about Avatar learned about it from me. It's quite a few people already, though. I've been a good Apostle.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

New interview (Part 1 of it anyway) with Cameron from a journalist that was shown 35mins of the film including the ending.

GB: Jim, congratulations on the film, it’s very, very compelling. I'm excited to see it in its entirety and even more excited to talk to you about it.

JC: Well, thanks; I’m really glad you liked it. And that’s what we were hoping for. We’ve been working like crazy on this for a long time. And what we want is for people to like it, so that’s nice to hear.

GB: I have to say it was refreshing to see a big, special effects film that was not based on a bestselling novel, a comic book, toy, old television show. That’s rare these days, and it’s a treat to go in, sit down and have no idea where the plot and the characters were going to go.

JC: It’s simultaneously one of the great strengths and one of the potential weaknesses. We have no brand value. We have to create that brand value. “Avatar” means something to that group of fans that know this film is coming, but to the other 99% of the public it’s a nonsense word and we have to hope we can educate them. Well, I shouldn’t say a nonsense word – it doesn’t mean anything specific in terms of a brand association. And in fact there may be even a slight negative one because more people know about the Saturday morning cartoon, the anime, than about this particular film. We’ve got to create that [brand] from scratch. On the other hand, ultimately, it is probably the film’s greatest strength in the long run. We’ve had these big, money-making franchise films for a long time, “Star Trek” and “Star Wars,” you know, “Harry Potter,” and there’s a certain sort of comfort factor in that; you know what you’re going to get. But there’s no kind of shock of the new that’s possible with that. It’s been a while since something that took us on a journey, something that grabbed us by the lapels and dragged us out the door and took us on a journey of surprise.

GB: “The Matrix” immediately springs to mind…

JC: Yes, yes, that’s a very, very good example. That’s something where we had no real way of knowing what that film was going to be about and it really just took us on a great ride.

GB: And like “The Matrix,” this movie presents this immersive experience. The alien world and the technology you’re using to tell the story, it’s a big movie ….

JC: The story is told very much from character. You go on Jake’s journey with him. It actually starts quite small. It starts close to him, in his apartment with him, and it just expands and expands in scope as it goes along.

GB: I smiled at the

Spoiler

“You’re not in Kansas anymore" line

when the main character reaches the alien world. There really is this “Wizard of Oz” sense of transportation when the story reaches the planet of Pandora.

JC: Yeah. It’s my favorite movie; I had to get it in there somewhere. The production designer was Rick Carter, who actually played that out. He thought how it was, in some ways, like Dorothy’s journey. I didn’t quite get as much of that [when I first wrote it]. You do things sometimes as a writer subconsciously, things you’re not even aware of. I’m always comfortable doing things instinctively because I see it as taping into this vein of archetype that works for a broader audience base. I don’t question what I’m doing if it feels right. There might be some other references there I might not be aware of.

GB: You wrote the first script for this film almost 15 years ago. While you were waiting for technology to reach the point where it could be made, I’m curious how much of that very earliest story remained intact.

JC: I had to rework to make it possible. My treatment was so expansive and novelistic that it needed to be necked down just to make it something that could be done on the screen. This film is done on an epic scale, but it's done within the parameters of a Hollywood movie. What I found is that instead a script I had written the outline of a novel, and it was just too much story, too much back story, too many secondary characters … but look, sometimes lightning just strikes; you have write everything down, get it done. Better to weed it out later and not miss an idea. It was essentially the longest script, in terms of the amount of time it took me to get a workable draft. The first time I tried, it ended up being more than 200 pages, so I had to go back and throw out big chunks, a lot of ideas went out. But I have to say the essence of all the big ideas stayed and I felt pretty good about that.

(Here's an early-on teaser for "Avatar," the release date has since been changed...)




GB: The heritage of the project and the mystery of it, since it’s not an adaptation, have created this fairly intense interest among the fanboy sector. That was obvious with the interest leading up to Comic-Con International. Do you feel you have to win fans over now to create the sort of success you want for this movie?

JC: I think there are no real negatives because we aren’t going to get prejudged like “Watchmen” or even a Batman or Spider-Man movie because you don’t have all that history and that huge, brand-based mythology that you have to live up to. We aren’t going to piss anybody off because they don’t know what this thing is. Nobody read the novel, nobody read the graphic novel, we’re not going to be playing against expectation. They aren’t going to be viewing us as a disappointment or letdown before the movie even starts. This is a doorway and they don’t know what’s on the other side. We’re going to open it for them.

There are a lot of fans of this kind of science fiction and fantasy film, and I think it's pretty fertile soil for us. I don’t want to sound like, you know, ‘Pride goeth before the fall,” or too much hubris, but I think we get those fans to support this. I think our greater challenge is the wider public, which isn’t as predisposed to embrace the movie like those fantasy and sci-fi fans. We need to talk to that audience and make them believe that this is a must-see even if they aren’t sci-fi fans. And I’m not putting down Comic-Con fans. When I go down there I’m among my peeps. It’s a great place to unveil “Avatar.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/her...like-the-matrix-this-movie-is-a-doorway-.html

 

[critch]

...an indie success story that has catapulted its director's career in a big way and is still going strong?

How is not even crossing 5 million domestic a success? That's shit no matter if it's indie or not. And the director is working on...a documentary on submarines.

Now District 9 will be a 'success', but even that will fail to hit 100 mil most likely. Maybe just. That's a very close approximate to Avatar. Geek heavy pushing for it, everyone else not knowing what the hell it is till it's ready to come out, confusion against a similar titled movie in a similar genre ('9' comes out next month) and it's opening against a big chick movie. (The Time Traveler's Wife)

Countering your anecdotal evidence with some of my own, There was a thread tonight over at Shacknews about movies people were looking forward to. Someone mentioned Avatar. Yeah, quite a few people thought they were talking about the Airbender movie. There will be confusion unless Fox really gets the hype train rolling.

We're less than 2 weeks out and we know NOTHING about Avatar Day yet. I can even buy tickets to Inglorious Bastards right now! How is that possible?

And in fact there may be even a slight negative one because more people know about the Saturday morning cartoon, the anime, than about this particular film.

LOL even Cameron thinks so! :lol

 

[Krev]

How is not even crossing 5 million domestic a success? That's shit no matter if it's indie or not.

It's really not. It's actually very good by indie standards.

And the director is working on...a documentary on submarines.

If by 'documentary on submarines' you mean a WWII suspense thriller about the crew of the most effective submarine of WWII? Yeah, he's doing that after he makes 'Mute', a new sci-fi set in a futuristic Berlin that has five times the budget of Moon.
I would have thought that going from being unknown as a director to having two projects lined up was a pretty good indicator of success, but maybe standards rose quite a bit while I wasn't looking.

Moon has barely dropped off its earnings in recent weeks, by the way.


Avatar's marketing is going to be absurdly massive in the lead-up to the release. Bet on it. Everyone will know it.