Exploration is not a luxury.

James Cameron made a name for himself making blockbuster films that defined genres and placed technology and creativity on insanely high levels. One need only see the makeing of The Abyss to see this in action. No matter your views about his films he was one of the first to really push technology in film that paved the way for many others to follow...

Since Titanic he's done NOTHING by Hollywood standards...he's made no sequals, new projects, or been associated with anything big. What he has been up to is Deep Wreck Diving...exploring the depths of the ocean to take a peek at now legendary ships. May sound boring as dirt to many of you but it's quite amazing.

He recenty wrote the following article for Wired that is a great read...short too. It says a lot of what many in science have stated many times...but few have listened too. This however says it better than most and gets to the heart of it all quite quick.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ron&topic_set=

That is kinda cool. Even if it is totally apocryphal, it makes me think he is that much cooler.

Wow, totally inspiring article too. It was my understanding that a lot of his best screenwriting stuff was pretty much written by others, but it would be weird to hire someone else to write something as passionate as that Wired article. I like people who care about what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

That is kinda cool. Even if it is totally apocryphal, it makes me think he is that much cooler.

---

You'd be surprised how much he knows on the subject...if you look at the production of The Abyss you'll see how underwater exploration has always been equal to his talents as a Filmmaker....he was just smart enough to know his films could pay for the cost of his explorations.

Lets remember that it's been traditional for scientists to be talented artists in the past....look at Da vinci...as skilled at science as he was at art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire

You'd be surprised how much he knows on the subject...if you look at the production of The Abyss you'll see how underwater exploration has always been equal to his talents as a Filmmaker....he was just smart enough to know his films could pay for the cost of his explorations.

Lets remember that it's been traditional for scientists to be talented artists in the past....look at Da vinci...as skilled at science as he was at art.

---

I never bought into the idea that art and science mentalities were two totally different sorts of brains. I know I'm not hardwired particularly more towards one or the other myself. Heck, I think my mom still thinks I should have been an organic chemistry professor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I never bought into the idea that art and science mentalities were two totally different sorts of brains. I know I'm not hardwired particularly more towards one or the other myself. Heck, I think my mom still thinks I should have been an organic chemistry professor.

---

Same here...Science was my first love as a kid and even though I try to fight it...can't really escape it. Science and Technology really got hand in hand with any artist today...always has though to be honest. Can't really get far in art without using the tools science has supplied one with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire

Same here...Science was my first love as a kid and even though I try to fight it...can't really escape it. Science and Technology really got hand in hand with any artist today...always has though to be honest. Can't really get far in art without using the tools science has supplied one with.

---

Although I had to be dragged kicking and screaming and nails scraping grooves in the pavement to the internet, I was extremely well-versed with printing tech and I think it is something where someone who can create, but is anti-technology, will certainly suffer. Of course, using technology well and being excited about science do not have to go hand-in-hand I guess.

all I have to say is THX1138..
fuck you james cameron. why don't you go hide your face in shame from the crapfest that was darkangel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

all I have to say is THX1138..
fuck you james cameron. why don't you go hide your face in shame from the crapfest that was darkangel.

---

The fuck does this have to do with anything?

And what was his involement in THX1138? Lucas was the one behind the film and the recent "update" to it.

As far as Dark Angel goes...he directed the pilot then took back seat duties as "executive producer" which can mean anything...he ditched out of direct creative involvement pretty early on anyhow. They even took his name off the show by the start of the second season.

yeah, george lucas was making technological movies before james cameron and after, and they kicked his ass (prequels excluded).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

yeah, george lucas was making technological movies before james cameron and after, and they kicked his ass (prequels excluded).

---

And before Lucas came countless before him...from Kubrick to Frtiz Lang. Lucas does not hold the crown as the king of technology based films...for content alone The Twilight Zone beats him and for sheer ingenuity you could easily argue that the pioneer's of silent film special effects were just as important and more influential than ILM. I love Lucas and his contributions but these days Robert Zemeckis is doing more interesting work with technology as part of filmmaking. ILM will always be Lucas's true legacy but he's not the first or the last of his kind of filmmaker.

Besides as good as THX1138 is one could easily say he took pages from german expressionist film and george orwell novels and smashed them together. Is it a great film? Yes...is it a classic of science fiction? yes. Does it alone make Lucas a better filmmaker than Cameron...no. Both have wildly diffrent styles and asthetics with each being important for a variety of reasons. Both have been heavily influential on modern storytellers and will continue to be.

Re the second page of his article...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041106-102513-7254r.htm

Mars. In dramatic contrast to the moon, Mars has all the elements and substances, in abundance, necessary for life and industry, including, crucially, water. It has an atmosphere shielding the surface from solar flares and other radiation. By incredible luck, it has a 24-hour day/night cycle like Earth, and its soil is a viable medium for plant growth, so large, cheap, inflatable greenhouses are practical, which is crucially important. People need farms. Over the long run, Mars can be "terraformed," or made to be more Earthlike, with a thicker atmosphere, a warmer climate, and even a shirt-sleeve environment. Mars has as much land as all Earth's continents combined, and it's all open and available. It is truly the next frontier waiting for humanity.

And we can get there right now with boring, current technology at reasonable cost. No need to wait for a distant exotic someday. If we focus on going there directly, without distractions and diversions such as orbital/lunar spaceports or futuristic propulsion, and if we "live off the land" by manufacturing water, oxygen and return fuel from abundant and cheap local resources using simple and reliable 19th-century-technology chemical reactions, we can afford a significant program of Martian exploration, with a new crew launched every two years, at about $50 billion over 10 years, which accounts for massive government cost overruns and is a fraction of the current NASA budget of $17 billion a year, which is itself less than 1 percent of federal spending. Truly a small price to pay to give humanity a second world.

---

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ss_to_Mars.gif