James Cameron Is Still Beating The 3D Is The Future Drum
The fact that the average moviegoer doesn’t really give a crap about 3D hasn’t stopped king of the galaxy director James Cameron from singing its praises. Via the Playlist, Jimbo dropped this very quotable nugget in a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly:
“I think [The Hurt Locker] would have been better in 3D. Absolutely. It wouldn’t have been hugely better in 3D, but I’m talking a future where you don’t have to put ‘in 3D’ on the movie poster anymore, the same way you don’t put ‘in color’ on posters anymore.”
Ah, yes. A future when all movies, even vacuous rom-coms and overwrought family dramas are in 3D. A future where a desperate to find Mr. Right Jennifer Aniston will fire a Jimmy Choo pump at her not ready to commit boyfriend and it will feel like we the audience are being struck in the face. I can’t wait for this magical future Cameron speaks of.
C’mon, Jimmy. Why not admit you’re hocking all this 3D technology in an effort to fill your own pockets? Since you know how to do 3D the right way, you and your expertise will prove invaluable should all this come to pass.
Like it was for a brief time in the ’80s, 3D is nothing more than a fad. Sure, Avatar looked amazing, but not every flick can follow suit. The Hurt Locker was a nuanced drama with moments of intense action, not a larger than life sci-fi epic. People are now watching movies on phones, tablet devices and laptops. It’s not about 3D or 2D, it’s about immediacy and convenience. Methinks Cameron has spent too much time in his ivory tower to realize his vision of the future isn’t shared by younger generations.
Dont forget that he loves to point on potential improvements of the movie that beat him for Movie of the year…which was directed by his wife.
Sorry, Ex-wife**
What a total bunch of crap. I have yet to see any film that is better and more entertaining as result of being filmed in 3D. It just seems that the use of 3D is intended to mask and compensate for a film lacking an engaging storyline and good acting. I actually avoid the 3D versions of films as i want to watch a movie not just be hammered over the head with nonsensical effects for no purpose.
The constant use of 3D demands of one of favorite sayings: “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should”
fad is right.. who cares. if i have the option of paying 7.50 for a movie or 10.00. more likely than not im going to go with trusty 2D.
3D, where you pay for a headache and a generally terrible looking movie all in the same place.
James Cameron needs a good punch to the face… in 3D
This is a garbage op-ed article. I wonder if any of you even realize how short-sighted you’re being? All you’re effectively doing is slowing our technological progress.
The next logical leap in cinema is taking it into three dimensions. Movies try to to give us stories in a format we are familiar with – we see what is going on around us and we hear what is being said or done in every day life. We live with depth. Watching a film play out on a two-dimensional plane is what we are used to, but that’s not the end-all be-all of cinematic experience. Had we been introduced to three-dimensional movies from the get-go, we would be screaming bloody murder if they suddenly took it away – similar to how a regression from color to monochrome at this point in time would infuriate consumers.
I understand that some of you think that “wearing the glasses is a huge pain” and “it’s too expensive,” but these are the starting points that will enable us to move the technology into the future. The glasses will eventually be done away with (and personally, I think marketing sets that require glasses is a mistake), and the price will eventually fall, like it does with all new technology.
It baffles my mind that some people fail to see the potential of this technology. It really does. The only way I can even begin to understand that is to assume that the current inconveniences of 3D blind them to how immersive and natural the experience can be. I would caution you all – you’re turning into the elderly grandparents who shun computers because they’re “different.”
Finally, a question: how many of you can honestly say that – all other things equal (price, number of open seats available in the theater, headache condition, etc.) – you would opt to see the same film in 2D as opposed to 3D?
3D is a joke. And a 50 year old joke. We used to use the SAME “technology” to see in 3d, but then it was called stereoscopic. And it was kids stuff. Still is today.
Step up 3-D was like totally made better by 3D, and stuff. Like. Totally.
Totally with Kurayami: You guys sound so short-sighted. Cameron’s “in color” comment was bang-on, and should reveal the hypocrisy of those who still balk at 3D as gimmicky. Once the price comes down, it’ll be a no-brainer.
@ Kurayami
I can honestly say that all things being equal I would rather watch a movie in 2D than 3D. I find 3D distracting. The depth gained from a 3D movie does not feel like the depth we perceive in the real world. It still feels like an illusion.
If you wanted a true immersion then I would use your logic to say that all movies should be shot in real time, since we experience time linearly. All movies therefore must have plots that take roughly 2.5 hours to complete, unless that is you want to watch a movie for what could be years at a time.
My point is that movies are not always about immersion. Can 3D be cool? Sure. But should 3D be the natural progression of all cinema? Hell no.
3D books, the next logical step.
Kura and James Cameron speak of “3D” movies as if they’re actually 3D. This isn’t a technological revolution that allows us to watch holographic 3D movies. Its merely a parlor trick optical illusion using red and blue blurred film, the reason people reject it isn’t because they’re stone age anti-change neanderthals, its because its a gimmicky editing trick and not an actual technological jump, especially since its been around for decades and all the sudden people realized they can charge you 10 bucks a ticket for something that should have remained a novelty attraction at theme parks.
@ Derek#2
The words are just jumping off the page!
Don’t speak for everyone. I don’t watch Aniston fliks. I want as many amazing movies to come out in 3d as humanly possible, and find it a dream to consider working in the format someday. It’s the future, why don’t YOU get over it? It can fulfill a niche perfectly; you don’t have to try to ruin our fun with trying to sound in-the-know, you kid.
Avatar, filmed properly in 3D, was worth the gimmick. Sure, it was 3 hours of terrible movie, but seeing it like that was pretty impressive.
Every film I’ve seen in 3D since, right down to Toy Story 3, has been underwhelmingly 3D. In most cases you’re barely aware of the 3D, aside from the uncomfortable glasses and vastly lessened brightness/color contrast. You’re paying extra to be less comfortable and see a less vibrant picture. No thanks.
I saw Despicable Me in 2D. Aside from the occasional scene clearly made for 3D I feel as if I missed nothing. In fact, I think I enjoyed the picture more for being 2D.
3D is not the wave of the future. It’s a brief gimmick, as it’s always been. The tradeoffs of moving to 3D are not worth the advantage, especially when a significant chunk of the population can’t even see the advantage, or is made dizzy by it.
When we go to glassless 3D it’ll be slightly more legitimized, although some still won’t be able to see it.
When we go to holographic 3D it may be here to stay.
Until then? Flash in the pan. It’ll be gone by 2013.
I wonder what Kurayami’s poop ravine smells like?
sup Kurayami, how have you been buddy
Hi Kura :wave:
Mr Nobody in 3D would be really nice. Also the Star Wars, LotR and Matrix movies, provided they were originally made in ‘real’ 3D, rather than post-processed (as they supposedly will be). I believe LotR would be extremely hard to film in 3D due to all the composites. Yet if LotR had been made today, it would probably be all CGI anyway, which would have provided much more freedom and consistency, but would lack the realism.