Why did it take 12 years for James Cameron to make Avatar?(slate.com)
slate.com
Why did it take 12 years for James Cameron to make Avatar?
http://www.slate.com/id/2238851/entry/2238287/
2 comments
Apparently that's the whole article. I'm surprised, actually.
(Is it just me, or is the phrase "read a video slideshow" doubly oxymoronic? It's not reading, it's watching. It's not a slideshow, it's a video.)
(Is it just me, or is the phrase "read a video slideshow" doubly oxymoronic? It's not reading, it's watching. It's not a slideshow, it's a video.)
The link leads to a section with several pages. Each page is about a hiatus in a director's career and contains a video with a longish paragraph about the delay. Reading is involved and it is akin to a slideshow (with videos instead of images).
I think "view a video slideshow" is a bit better.
I think "view a video slideshow" is a bit better.
This is not a video, it's a slideshow (insofar as it's a self-contained sequence of card-sized pages), each of whose slides is a video clip.
You should read the Wired article on James Cameron / Avatar, which goes into nice detail of how his idea for Avatar began, where there were delays, and a brief history of his other film career: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/ff_avatar_cameron/
Okay... is that really the end of the article? I'm disappointed with how flippant this sounds, but: I think this article is the joke, and that Wired article is the punchline.
(Note: I know there's a 'video slideshow' at the end, but I don't think it mentions Cameron...)