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.

Last Friday, at an onstage interview I conducted with the Netflix CEO, I asked him when his company might start offer streaming video for Nintendo’s Wii game console, as it does for Microsoft’s (MSFT) Xbox 360 and Sony’s (SNE) Playstation3.

The chances were “excellent,” Hastings said. “These things have a natural rhythm, and these are things that I think will work out over time.”

Another way Hastings could have answered the question, if he wanted to be a little more forthright: “It’s a done deal.”

Netflix and Nintendo are formally announcing the pact today, and Wii owners will be able to stream movies to their TV sets via the console sometime this spring, the companies say.

It’s an obvious move for both parties, but it’s particularly good one for Netflix (NFLX) since it offers the company a chance to introduce itself to some 26 million Wii owners–more than double the company’s 11 million subscriber base.

Netflix is slowly transforming itself from a company that mails DVDs to customers to one that streams video directly to their homes. Hastings says that 50 percent of his customers have tried the streaming service option, and game console owners have been particularly receptive.

If you want to scour Hastings’s comments for clues to other deals that may be in the offing, be my guest. Here are all 36 minutes of our chat, which took place during the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100113/netflixs-chances-of-a-nintendo-deal-really-were-excellent/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20080910/new-amazon-service-streams-tv-shows-and-films-to-pcs/ http://allthingsd.com/20080910/new-amazon-service-streams-tv-shows-and-films-to-pcs/#comments Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:08:05 +0000 Walter S. Mossberg http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20080910/new-amazon-service-streams-tv-shows-and-films-to-pcs/ Consumer options for viewing popular TV shows and movies directly from the Internet, as opposed to watching them from traditional cable and satellite systems, keep growing. Last week, yet another approach to Internet distribution of commercial video content emerged.

Amazon (AMZN) launched a new service called Amazon Video on Demand, which allows users, for a fee, to watch any of 40,000 TV episodes or movies, in real time, on their Windows and Macintosh computers, and on specially equipped Sony Bravia TV sets. This service replaces an earlier Amazon video offering called Unbox.

[ See post to watch video ]

I have been testing Amazon Video on Demand and I found it worked well, although it has some limitations. The user interface is clean and smart, the quality is good if you have a fast Internet connection, and there are some clever features. On the downside, it works poorly with the slow connections typical in places like hotels. And there are some studio-imposed limits on what content is offered and how you can view it.

To date, there have been three major models for legally getting TV shows and movies from the Web.

In one, best represented by Apple’s (AAPL) widely used iTunes store, the TV shows and movies are ad-free, but you pay for each. All of this content is downloaded to your Windows or Macintosh computer or your Apple TV set-top box for later viewing, even when you’re not connected to the Internet — though on Apple TV you can start watching while the material is being downloaded.

A second model, best represented by the studio-owned Hulu.com, presents movies and TV shows on a Windows or Macintosh personal computer free of charge, but requires you to watch commercials that can’t be skipped. The TV shows and movies you view on Hulu are “streamed” rather than downloaded, meaning they are meant to be viewed immediately, in real time, rather than stored for viewing when you’re not connected to the Internet.

The third online model is best represented by Netflix (NFLX), the popular DVD distributor. It offers a “Watch Instantly” streaming option on Windows PCs or on TVs equipped with a special set-top box, for a small portion of its large catalog of TV shows and movies. These videos are ad-free and don’t carry an individual charge, but require a monthly subscription fee.

The new Amazon Video on Demand service is a hybrid of these others. As on iTunes, the TV shows and movies it offers are ad-free and purchased individually, don’t require a subscription, and work on both Windows and the Mac, plus on one type of set-top box. In Amazon’s case, that’s Sony’s Bravia Internet Link, a $299 device that works only with Sony (SNE) TVs.

But, like Hulu and Netflix and unlike Amazon’s older Unbox service, the new Amazon Video on Demand service offers videos via real-time streaming. In many cases, it also allows downloading, iTunes-style, to Windows PCs (but not Macs) and to TiVo devices attached to a TV. The videos can’t be streamed in real time using a TiVo (TIVO).

Amazon’s streaming videos are viewed in any of the major Web browsers and don’t require any special software. I tested the new service on both Windows PCs and Macs, and on a Sony Bravia TV equipped with the $299 adapter box. In my tests, Amazon’s videos looked quite good over a fast Internet connection. However, on a typically lousy hotel Internet connection, the movies were often grainy and kept stuttering.

The new service doesn’t yet offer videos in high definition, something Apple just announced this week it is adding for some TV shows. Amazon says it is working on HD.

Amazon’s user interface for the new service is very nice. All of your purchased videos are available in a library stored on the company’s servers, so you can easily watch them again and again if they are purchased, or resume a partly watched rental. And the service remembers where you stopped watching a video and resumes it at that point, even if you started it on, say, a Dell (DELL), and resumed it on a Mac.

On the downside, the new Amazon service isn’t always simple or consistent. For instance, you can watch only two videos at a time, and not all titles can be either streamed and downloaded, or be either purchased or rented. Most rentals last 24 hours, but some differ.

Selection was OK, but not great. Because of studio policies, many current and recent movie hits aren’t available. There are gaps as well in the TV selection. For example, while iTunes offers the current second season of the excellent “Mad Men” series, Amazon has only the first season.

Prices also can be confusing. Amazon rents most movies for $3.99 and sells them for between $9.99 and $14.99. TV shows generally cost $1.99. But some titles carry different prices, albeit these are often lower.

All in all, Amazon Video on Demand is a good service for people who prefer paying for ad-free TV shows and movies, and is another strong step in the Internet’s rising competition with traditional TV.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20080910/new-amazon-service-streams-tv-shows-and-films-to-pcs/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20080813/sony-and-roku-try-to-join-tv-to-web-but-no-merger-yet/ http://allthingsd.com/20080813/sony-and-roku-try-to-join-tv-to-web-but-no-merger-yet/#comments Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:06:44 +0000 Walter S. Mossberg http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20080813/sony-and-roku-try-to-join-tv-to-web-but-no-merger-yet/ Perhaps the biggest disconnect in the digital landscape today is between the Internet and the TV set. Consumers have been buying big, new high-definition TVs in large numbers and, separately, are watching more and more video from online sources like YouTube, Hulu and iTunes. But the two trends have yet to merge. Despite the efforts of big names like Microsoft (MSFT), Apple (AAPL) and TiVo (TIVO), relatively few people are watching Internet video on their shiny new sets.

[ See post to watch video ]

Now, two more set-top boxes have been launched to try to marry the Internet and the TV. Both adapters, from Sony (SNE) and Roku, worked well in my tests, but each has limitations. The problem is that one of the boxes supplies content from a wide range of Internet video sources, but only works on selected models of one brand of TV set; the other works on a wide variety of TVs, but only provides a single source of content.

Sony’s adapter is the Bravia Internet Video Link. This is a $300 module that attaches to certain Sony HDTV models. It can either be set up beside the TV or snapped onto the back of the set. Once it’s connected to your TV and to your home network for Internet access, a new menu appears on the TV allowing you a choice of videos from numerous online sources, including YouTube, Yahoo (YHOO), Blip. TV, Sports Illustrated, AOL, Wired, and the Web sites of CBS (CBS), Showtime and more.

Setting up the Bravia Internet Video Link was straightforward, even though it involved a welter of cables. There is no built-in Wi-Fi — you need either a cable or an add-on wireless adapter to connect to the Internet. The primary hookup to the TV is via a modern type of cable called HDMI, for High Definition Multimedia Interface.

I tested the Sony Link using the company’s most unusual HDTV set — a tiny, very costly model that uses a very thin, very vivid new screen technology called OLED, for Organic Light-Emitting Diode. This TV provided a spectacular picture, but it isn’t required to use the Sony module. The Link works on many larger, more common Sony sets with more common screens. It just doesn’t work on non-Sony TV sets.

Sony’s Bravia Internet Video Link adapter

The Sony module doesn’t have its own remote control. It uses the one that came with the TV. This makes for an awkward experience, because there are no standard play and pause buttons, and various other buttons on the remote meant to do one thing on the TV may do another when watching Internet video via the Link module.

Also, I found some of the Internet content to be disappointing. Many of the items labeled “movies” on various Internet channels were really just trailers, and some content was stale. For instance, some baseball news videos on Yahoo were weeks old.

However, Sony plans to make one of its feature films, “Hancock,” available through the Link module before it’s released on DVD. More important, it will be adding access to Amazon’s (AMZN) forthcoming video-streaming service, which promises to contain a wealth of full-length content.

The Netflix Player by Roku is much simpler. In fact, it was the simplest set-top box I have ever tested. It costs just $100 and does just one thing: It allows Netflix (NFLX) subscribers to view its movies and TV shows via the Internet on a television set instead of on a computer. It can’t get you any other video content from the Internet.

The Netflix player is a small, plain black box that works with most TVs, not just digital or high-definition models. It connects using both old-fashioned cables, like the kind used by many VCRs and older DVD players, or an HDMI cable.

Unlike the Sony, the Roku box includes both wireless and wired Internet connectivity, and has its own remote. While the box is capable of displaying high-definition content, the Netflix service isn’t currently streaming movies and TV shows in high definition, so you get varying quality, depending on your TV and Internet speed, up to DVD-type levels.

There’s no added monthly fee required to use the Roku box, but you must be a Netflix subscriber. The box merely displays the movies or TV shows you have placed in your Instant Queue on Netflix. You have to do this on your computer before viewing the videos on the Roku box. You can choose from around 12,000 streaming movies and TV shows, far fewer than the 100,000 titles Netflix makes available via DVD, but a sizable collection.

In my tests, the Roku box set up quickly and easily, the interface and remote were simple and effective, and the movies and TV shows I tested streamed quickly and without hesitation over my fast home Internet connection.

Both products are meant to promote sales of other things — Sony TVs and the Netflix movie-rental service. They do these tasks well, but neither is the breakthrough solution that will connect most TVs to most Internet video content.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20080813/sony-and-roku-try-to-join-tv-to-web-but-no-merger-yet/feed/ 0