Avatar - What does Avatar technology mean for movies?

Avatar is breaking lots of records for Hollywood and theaters are loving it. First, a little perspective. The movie is making lots of money but that doesn't mean more people are going to see it over other films. Remember when you hear of how much money it is making consider that there is the additional cost of seeing it in 3-D thus allowing it to gain 20-40% more because of the technology. What I am saying is... a normal matinee costs $7 at my theater but a 3-D matinee costs $10.50. This isn't inflation. Avatar is making more money because it costs more to see. Don't get me wrong I am down with 3-D. I think it is the future of movie theaters. I hope it works. I hope it grows. My struggles are not with 3-D but with the use and scale of digital effects in Avatar.

There is a concern, at least within my vision. I fear this digital manipulation of film is or can become a negative thing for film makers. When shooting Avatar, writer/director James Cameron didn't scout or use locations, so he created his own. I am not just talking about sets or stages but an entire world. He created this world of Pandora using computers. It is quite an amazing feet. But the realism that can be created with his computers is not just beautiful but in some ways very frightening.

Think of some of the great movies you have seen or some of the great movies in history. Think about where those films were made and how those cities play a huge part in making them great. Think about all the great films shot in New York City like Taxi Driver or Do The Right Thing. Try thinking of Breathless or Amelie without Paris. Are you understanding what I am laying down? Who is to stop someone from shooting a film set in Paris, Rio, South Africa, Hong Kong or the badlands of Nebraska from their basement. I am not saying this is happening now or that it will happen but with advancing technologies who is to say that it won't happen. Maybe this will allow a certain amount of flexibility with filming. Maybe it will make it more cost effective and better. James Cameron once spoke about the power of this technology in reference to the famous sunset kiss sequence in his film Titanic. The crew waited for days to film under the right sunset. Now, that scene would be shot in a studio and the sun would painted on, wasting no time and creating no inconvenience. For me, this is a horrible idea. It destroys a certain sense of realism that film carries. An art form that has battled notions of realism in many forms will simply become more of a staged event. It will have less taste and texture. It won't feel real. It will be the veggie burger posing as a meat product or faux wooded flooring pretending to be oak. There is something fascinating about shooting on location.

I am not sure how the Italian Neo-Realists of the 1950's, or the French New Wave rebels of the 60's or the Germans of the 70's would taken to this new technology. It certainly seems to be the antithesis of organic film making. How would Kurosawa, Renoir or Hitchcock look at this technology? As a hopeful film maker, I am amazed by its abilities and frightened by its possibilities.

Some of have ignored my concerns or simply suggested that films or the business would never go that far. I doubt that to be true. I think if there is technology out there, someone will exploit it as long as a profit can be made. I don't think this new film technology will be used solely to create other planets, underwater civilizations or anything else outside our realm of possibility. I know one day a few actors will perform their lines in front of a green wall and then Seattle or Mexico City, Berlin or Cairo will be painted in the background. Film makers will no longer seek the adventure of the open world but try to recreate in a box. I think that is a horrible thing and I hope there will be those out there to resist it.