Okay, this one looks cool and is very densely packed with special effects.

Here’s the trailer for “I Am Number Four,” about a hunted kid with superpowers, a film with an even more super pedigree. Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg are producing the movie for DreamWorks Animation SKG.

It’s based on a teen science-fiction book written by Jobie Hughes and James Frey.

Enjoy:

Is it just me or is this the 103rd sequel to the original “Pirates of the Caribbean”?

In any case, here comes more special effects in “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” which is opening this May.

Remember when it was only a Disney ride?

Enjoy:

Another comic book hero is coming to life in the movies via a whole lot of special effects.

This time, it’s “Green Lantern.”

It’s not easy being green.

Enjoy the video of the trailer for the film, which comes out next year:

Hollywood director James Cameron–whose “Avatar” began the explosion of 3-D in movies–has been complaining about too many substandard movies being made using the technology.

But this film, “Gulliver’s Travels,” starring Jack Black, looks like it will be terrific in 3-D and is chock-full of special effects too.

It’s coming out for Christmas.

Here’s the video of the latest trailer:

Another freaky but compelling movie trailer–this one for “Unknown,” a bad-guys-stole-my-identity thriller set in Berlin and starring Liam Neeson and January Jones.

It’s got a lot of action and special effects, but it looks like the complex story is at the center of the action.

Enjoy:

It’s hard to say what’s going on in this trailer for a Hollywood movie titled “Sucker Punch,” skedded to come out next spring, except to say it is full of even more heavy-duty special effects and, bonus, lady warrior action.

The film, reads the description, “is an epic action fantasy that takes us into the vivid imagination of a young girl whose dream world provides the ultimate escape from her darker reality. Unrestrained by the boundaries of time and place, she is free to go where her mind takes her, but her incredible adventures blur the lines between what’s real and what is imaginary…with potentially tragic consequences.”

All I can see is yet another movie that relies even more on digital manipulation.

But it does look cool, so enjoy:

Thirteen years later he did it again: “Avatar.” And as much as “Avatar” stretched the boundaries of the box office, it has stretched the boundaries of cinema as well. The 3-D film featured a staggering 2,500-plus special-effects shots, set a new standard for movie-making technology and may have ushered in a big-screen renaissance in the process.

Liveblog

Walt and Kara are bathed in blue! They look vaguely Avatar-like. And here comes Cameron, who lavishes praise on the red leather hot seats.

8:17 pm: Kara–You’ve embraced tech for a long time. Where did that start?

Cameron: I started as an FX guy. I had to figure out how all of that was done. We no longer use any of the tools I learned how to use. The artistic skills I developed haven’t changed.

8:18 pm: Walt–Do you think there’s a way to enjoy “Avatar” without seeing it in 3-D?

Cameron: Sure. Most of the work I do as a director doesn’t have to do with 3-D. The 3-D should be viewed as value-added. Everyone said you had to see “Avatar” in the theaters, in 3-D. But the DVDs have sold really well. If people have the choice, they use 3-D. If they don’t, 2-D works fine.

8:20 pm: Walt–So will there be a movie that requires 3-D?

Cameron: Sure. That could be an interesting experiment, but it would be a failure of narrative. Good movies scale–they work on iPhones, and on theater screens.

8:21 pm: Kara–We saw a not-good movie the other night ["Prince of Persia"--terrible], and every preview was for a 3-D movie.

Cameron: Yep. There’s going to be a period of time when we risk “debasing the coinage.” If we make people pay extra for a lousy movie, we’re going to be in trouble.

Walt: Who does it well?

Cameron: Jeffrey Katzenberg at DreamWorks. “How to Train Your Dragon” was sumptuous.

8:23 pm: Kara–Let’s talk about the tech involved in “Avatar.” What’s different about your 3-D and other 3-Ds?

Cameron: 3-D has had a rocky start-and-stop experience. He walks through the chronology of different tech. Fast-forward to 2000. First prototypes of projectors with very high frame rates. And I was working on the different end, working on a specialized camera. It still took a long time.

It was a very flat curve for a long time. Now it’s practically vertical. But prior to that, exhibitors didn’t want to pay to retrofit theaters for one movie a year. Studios wouldn’t do 3-D if there were no theaters, etc. I was proselytizing, but most people ignored me.

By 2005, I decided to make a big film in 3-D, “without the wink and snigger,” a serious film. “You know, I’m just going to go out there and do this, and let the chips fall where they may.”

I don’t want to take all the credit. There were a small number of people who were doing this: Robert Zemeckis, Katzenberg. Peter Jackson said he would do a 3-D movie, but didn’t. But the announcement was valuable in itself.

8:28 pm: Can you remake “Titanic” in 3-D?

Cameron: Yes.

Walt: Are you thinking about doing that?

Cameron: We’re not thinking about doing that, we’re doing it. We’ll have it ready for the ship’s 100th anniversary in 2012.

8:30 pm: Kara–Would you do this with “Terminator” and other older movies you’ve done?

Cameron: Depends. We’re going to spend months and millions converting “Titanic.” But if filmmakers do lousy jobs of conversions, “pop-up book style,” that’s going to get old quickly.

8:33 pm: Walt–So what about 3-D TV sets?

Cameron: Problem is that there’s not enough content right now. If you get every 3-D movie, you’ll have a good three days, and then you’re done.

8:33 pm: Walt–And most people have just bought sets recently.

Cameron: Right. But it will change over time. And if you’re buying today, go ahead and future-proof yourself by buying 3-D.

8:34 pm: Kara–Let’s talk about BP briefly. Tell us about your connection.

Cameron: There’s a story that the government went to Hollywood for help. But that’s not the case. I’ve just been interested and really involved in subs and wrecks for a long time. So over the last few weeks, I’ve been watching what’s happening and saying, “Those morons don’t know what they’re doing.” And then I realized I know a lot of people who work in deep submergence. They don’t do oil, but they know the engineering. So I got 23 people together for a brainstorming session at EPA headquarters. The EPA guys weren’t there; they were in the Gulf. But they hosted it.

Kara: You went to BP first?

Cameron: They could not have been more gracious. “But they said, ‘We’ve got this.’” Here’s the thing: We sat in a room for 10 hours and worked this problem. It’s a very complex problem, and it starts 18,000 feet down. Steel fails like it’s made out of butter. So you find out there are things that prevent them from doing obvious fixes.

But there are things that can be done. I want to say, I never thought I would be defending BP. Anyway, I started to shift perspective, to thinking that the government should be monitoring this stuff independently, and I can help with that.

Walt: Doesn’t the Navy have submarines?

Cameron: Yes. We work with them. Anyway, we’re working on a report, etc.

Walt: Is the White House involved in this?

Cameron: No, it’s a private effort.

8:40 pm: Kara–Let’s talk about Hollywood economics.

Cameron: “I think there was a time when Hollywood really didn’t get the rapidity of change. But we’re past that now.” Still, there’s a limit to how quickly they can change and still keep their business.

8:41 pm: Walt–There’s a lot of consumers and tech folks who think you should be able to see a movie or TV show whenever, wherever.

Cameron: You hear a lot of that. But it’s usually not from the people who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars making the film. [Scattered applause. Pretty sure I hear Rupert Murdoch, who's in the front, guffawing.]

8:43 pm: Walt–But why can’t I have it when and where I want?

Cameron: Now we’re at the first time when there is a real question: Do I want it now or do I want it great? People had a choice of watching a pirated version on a small screen, and enough people chose the theatrical experience to make it the highest-grossing movie ever.

Walt: But some people want to watch it on a small screen without stealing.

Cameron: Perhaps there are two percent of people under 30 who have a qualm about stealing. They went to the theater because it was a better experience.

8:45 pm: Kara attempts to talk about music, but stumbles on a Beatles album example. The big idea is that albums have gone away, replaced by singles, but movies don’t have that problem.

Cameron: Nope. But people do watch movies in different ways. Some are super-respectful and ritualistic; others multitask and watch picture-in-picture. At least here, the pendulum has swung back from doing that.

8:47 pm: Walt mentions people who haven’t seen “Avatar” in the theater [ahem]. They feel “trapped,” he says, because they want to see it in 3-D.

Cameron: I know. So we’re helping them out and re-releasing the movie in theaters in August. [Thanks!]

8:48 pm: Walt is still pressing on windows and the limits they put on consumer choice.

Cameron: I don’t really care because I won’t have another movie for three years, and by then, all of this will be worked out.

Kara: What’s the movie?

Cameron: Maybe four years. Either “Avatar 2″ or some other big movie that uses the same technology. 3-D.

8:51 pm: A tech discussion about frame rates, followed by Walt asking Cameron if he would deign to watch a movie on a laptop.

Cameron: Depends on the film. I won’t watch “2001″ on a laptop. But a funny movie would be fine. “The Hangover” would be just as funny on a laptop.

8:54 pm: A discussion about what technology can’t solve. You can make movies for less money, but the apparatus of promoting movies still requires a lot of money. And note that people who have success without a studio’s marketing arm with an indie movie–the next movie they make is a studio movie. I believe in letting people do what they’re good at. Studio marketing people do this every day. A day-and-date release, worldwide–that’s something to behold. A ton of work. We had something like 76, 78 discrete versions of “Avatar” that had to be prepped within five weeks for that.

8:58 pm: Walt–Is Silicon Valley involved in any part of what you do?

Cameron: Yes, but not in the way you might think. I went to Microsoft (MSFT), for instance, and asked for help with archiving and data. We started a year before the movie started on digital asset management. Microsoft has been a great partner.

9:00 pm: So you’re a big-deal director so you can work with Microsoft. Can other directors get help like that?

Cameron: For a movie like this, you need help from someone.

9:01 pm: Kara–Tell us about piracy. How big a problem is that for you?

Cameron: 3-D counteracted that for us. You could pirate the movie, but not the 3-D. That won’t hold forever, though.

9:04 pm: So where does Hollywood go?

Cameron: It doesn’t change much. You still need good stories, good casts, etc. Regardless of windows, augmented reality, etc. It’s still the same business. People have been talking about interactive movies since the 1980s. But we have those. They’re called games.

Walt: What do you think about games?

Cameron: Love them. Want to figure out ways to merge games and movies in next couple projects, where you can experience them in different ways.

Q&A

Can you talk about the Brazil controversy?

Cameron: I’ve been concerned about the environment for a long time and “Avatar” is about that, of course. So after the movie came out, it was so well received by the environmental community that all this stuff came flooding to me. I ended up going into “cause shock.” Ended up working with people in Brazil who are going through a situation that’s eerily similar to the “Avatar” plot.

Kara: What did you do for them?

Cameron: I created a rapport with them and then created a series of media events that bubbled it up to public consciousness in Brazil and for now, at least, put a halt to the dam they were building there.

Dumb question: I don’t get how you filmed it but it’s all CG [computer graphics]

Cameron: It’s not all CG. It’s about 60 percent CG. The film was shot in a virtual world, with a virtual camera. But another part is shot in live action.

Sorry, missed a couple questions.

Q: What do you consider your most personal film and what was the best advice you received when you started out?

A: “Avatar” is probably my most personal film. It really is an expression of everything that has meant something to me since I was five years old. The best advice I ever received? Roger Corman told me to sit down a lot while I was directing.

Q: Did you intend to elicit feelings of guilt toward the environment in the “Avatar” audience?

A: The intent was not to bitch-slap the audience but to take it outside of itself. Which is something that only film can do. By the end of “Avatar,” you’re looking at the human world from nature’s perspective and it doesn’t look so good.

And that’s a wrap.

A note about our coverage: This liveblog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as possible. It is not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.

This week: We grabbed a Caltrain up to San Francisco to meet with Lance Podell, CEO of Next New Networks, the Web video network whose shows usually mix hi-fi production and lo-fi hosts for that ultra-Webby feel that the kids are raving about.

Or so Podell hopes.

Who: Lance Podell

What: Chief Executive Officer

Why: According to Lance, Next New Networks is aiming to transform its existing lineup of 12 Web TV “networks” into a content behemoth that competes with the big cable guys. Oh yeah, and they plan to monetize it too. Eye rolling aside, at the end of 2009, they were nearly profitable.

Where: nextnewnetworks.com (Web site); @NextNewNetworks (Twitter); New York, N.Y. (analog place)

Who else: You name it. Next New Networks competes for face time with an armada of YouTube stars (although they try to recruit some of them too). How does it stack up? Well, the camera work in the latest webisode from YouTube star Fred isn’t anything to write home about, but you don’t have to sit through video advertising either.

Five Stats You Won’t Find in His Facebook Profile

Worst Job Ever: I had a job for a very brief time at a start-up called Savatar; it’s hard to even think about it. [Ad giant] WPP (WPPGY) had invested in this company that was supposed to build Web sites for all the WPP companies. This is like back in 1994. Not only did it crash and burn, but they made me go into I don’t know how many meetings and promise things I just knew we could never deliver.

When He’s Not Busy CEOing: I’m a dad a lot. My son plays just about every sport, so I’m at a lot of games. I also enjoy chasing my little girls around the house.

Gadget of the Moment: I’d love to buy an Internet-enabled TV. I was in the early days of interactive television trials and I really want to see that come to fruition.

Wishes There Was an App For: I really want to be able to use my BlackBerry with my Mac.

Fails At: Ugh, it’s a long list. My son would say understanding that he’s always right.

Bio in 140 Characters

Lance went from Lafayette College to the HBS, and then into the ad game. Next New Networks brought him in to be the ad money rainmaker.

The Five Questions

You guys have been around for a while now. I don’t know if I’d call you “New,” but what’s “Next” for you ?

We don’t just believe in just creating shows and niche content. We believe that the hosts of our shows have to also be a member of the community the show is aimed at. On our indy mogul network for example, Eric Beck literally runs one of the shows, Backyard FX [Think McG meets MythBusters]. He creates Hollywood-style special effects in your backyard for under $100. He’s really doing it. That’s step one.

Step two is we are asking you to contribute. It’s very Web-like, in a very Web way, right? Not like TV. We want you to contribute your thoughts, videos, comments and posts, following the video. Again, not like TV. We don’t have six-month development cycles. Every week that host is coming up with the next episode and we are relating it back to the community and their experience in the prior week.

So, the model is: No more broadcast, just piece together enough niche content, plus some revenue model, to equal profitability?

That’s true, what you said is entirely true. But I don’t want to get too bogged down in that. And the end of the day though, we are an entertainment company, so niches can mean a variety of things. Early on, the company’s goal was to have 100 “networks.” I think that was just an audacious goal to set for the sake of goal-setting. What we’ve done over time is try lots of things, see what works and what doesn’t, see where the passion within our company is, and build on that. And, as the YouTube audience has grown and matured, we can start to look there for shows that are popular and communities of interest.

Also, advertisers are asking for a lot. They want to reach moms, for example. So we are looking for gaps in the Internet that are also things moms want to watch. We don’t create programming specifically to satisfy the advertisers.

A good example of how the relationship works is that Caress had hired Carson Kressley [the "Queer Eye" guy] as a spokesperson, and as part of the ad agreement, we had him on our women’s talk show. Now, Carson wasn’t scripted by Caress, he just came on the show. It was a women’s talk show and he acted as though he were on the “Ellen” show, for instance.

You guys put your content everywhere: YouTube, Hulu, Vimeo–all of them. Are you concerned about a platform like Hulu setting up a pay wall and potentially adding a level of complication to your viewers’ experience?

We’re not concerned yet. If Hulu were to change to paid content, I don’t know that it would start with the Web originals. Do I imagine that three years from now that Web original programming will have the same kind of brand impact as something that comes out of NBC? Yes. Because Internet TV is changing everything. Our programs can be viewed on TiVo. They can be viewed on FiOS. Once, we had the kind of loyalty that might warrant it, would I be interested in selling some content behind a wall? Yeah, I’d look at it.

So you are confident that you can turn a profit without making people pay?

You know, you are talking to an old ad guy here. We have always said we’d never be able to pay for the next thing with just advertising and yet we always have. I believe we will pay, not for everything. For some things.

So if advertising is what’s “Next,” then what will those “New” ads have to do differently?

The advertisers that do really well with us, the ones who really get it, are the ones who come to me and say they want to hear their products advertised in the voice of the show host. They want the ad to sound like the voice of that community. They don’t want me to use their eight words that are in every print ad. They don’t want me to say that they are 100 percent reliable, safe and colorfast. They want me to talk about their brand in the way that the community will connect with it.

Another area that I think is hugely compelling is in the area of interactivity. And I think fashion is just the first place it should go. The idea of watching something on TV and then being able to immediately buy what the actor is wearing is just incredible to me.

The In Living Color Interview