EDITORIALS

1

Cameron is god you didn't know so bow down my friends.

CLAW on Feb 21, 2010

2

Personally, I hate 3D. It doesn't add anything to my experience, makes the screen harder to look at, and leaves me with a headache. It also detracts from that classic cinema experience, IMO.

YK on Feb 21, 2010

3

I agree with Cameron that a 3D movie should be shot in 3D and not just tacked on in post production but to be be honest 3D doesn't really make a film better. 3D is just going through a second fad again which died before I admit it is much better this time around but really it isn't anything that great. Avatar was a good film but 3D didn't make it any better, I'll still prefer to see movies like Iron Man 2 and Clash of the Titans in 2D but that it is just me, 3D just isn't what make me want to see a movie.

Anti-Fox on Feb 21, 2010

4

Conversion or not this is probably the tipping point. Now the move forward with 3d is probably not going to stop. For 5 years the release of 3d movies has been increasing slowly, but now in a year we will probably start to see 2 or 3 3d movies playing at the same time at the box office. Also the showing of them in 2d as well is probably going to become a thing of the past. There just are not going to be enough screen to do that anymore.

Tony Robertson on Feb 21, 2010

5

@ 1 claw cameron is no fucking god,his made four films that are any good.their is other directors for example ridley scott (alien,blade runner,gladiator & body of lies)his made four great films no one calls him a god that we should bow down to.when he won an oscar for titanic he said he was king of the world,i dread to think what his going to say if he wins an oscar for avatar.JAMES HAVING A BIG COCK IS DIFFERENT TO BEING A BIG COCK.

DEADPOOL,MERC WITH A MOUTH on Feb 21, 2010

6

I saw this intreview with James Cameron Back on slashfilms website with MTV. I total agree with James Cameron on this one you cannot make a 2 D film picture and Re-encode it into 3D and Expect to get the same Results has if the film was shoot in 3D it Just won't work. And has cameron said if you are going to make a 3D movie make a 3D movie if you are making a 2D movie Make a 2D movie.

Cineprog on Feb 21, 2010

7

He hit the nail right on the head - there are filmmakers out there that shoot in 3D for 3D because they want to immerse their audiences and bring their movies to life in a new way. Then, there are "filmmakers" out there who just want to convert their 2D movie to 3D because then they can charge 15+ bucks for a ticket. The first kind of filmmaker are the kind of people that will push for advancements and better 3D technologies (preferably without glasses) that could lead to some really cool stuff down the road. The second kind are going to be the reason people get sick of 3D movies and it ends up being just another fad and costing theaters millions in revenue because they invested in new projectors, etc.

Pete the Geek on Feb 21, 2010

8

Cameron's a genius! Can't wait for Avatar 2. Avatar fan at http://www.Naviblue.com.

Naviblue on Feb 21, 2010

9

Where did he say he had no hope for Clash of the Titans?

carlos on Feb 21, 2010

10

No, 3D is screwing up 3D.

SlashBeast on Feb 21, 2010

11

Is fair to say that the success of Avatar has been taken out of context. I have been following Avatar for 3 years now and from the beginning Cameron has talked about wanting to bring people back into movie theaters and have a subversive experience so say what you will about about 3D or Avatar's formulaic story line but Cameron has achieved what he set out to do. I guess there is always some sort of backlash to trying to change things but people focus on 3d as the advent of of the anti-Christ and blame Cameron for it. There is still plenty of good movies that will come out on 2d, like indie films, dramas, non-national geographicesque documentaries but 3d is and will continue to be the standard most high budget blockbuster movies are release on. The only thing movie lovers like us can do is choose whether or not we see this new wave of movies in 3d. @ DEADPOOL,MERC WITH A MOUTH, I think CLAW was being sarcastic. Terminator Aliens The Abyss Terminator 2 True lies Titanic Avatar I think is more like 7. I do love Ridley Scott but I am not looking forward to Russell Hood, it looks too much like Gladiator.

almartva on Feb 21, 2010

12

"When will they learn?" How about, never? "Learning" is not what studio executives *do.* Slavishly copying the success of others, and ignoring the onrushing train of reality, is what they *do.* The best way to anticipate Hollywood's approach to any new situation or technology, is to imagine a Hollywood version of the Kubler-Ross paradigm: 1. Denial 2. Denial 3. Denial 4. Denial 5. Desperate attempts at accommodation without change. That's about it.

Gerry Conway on Feb 21, 2010

13

3D sucks regardless. Avatar had amazing effects, not amazing 3D. sorry James.

Al on Feb 21, 2010

14

I wonder if James Cameron's awesomeness is due to him being CANADIAN. That's right, you Americans can suck it! Canada RULES!!!

Big Red Moose on Feb 21, 2010

15

I think this fad of converting everything to 3D would be akin to all of a sudden we get this craze where people want their movies in black and white, so all movies that have been shot regularly get the colors taken out before they make it to theaters. It's an obvious gimmick, but people are flocking to the theaters to go watch stuff like that. Wish it weren't so. Leave 3D to movies that are actually intended for 3D.

Alfredo on Feb 21, 2010

16

Saw Avatar in 3-d in Imax loved the movie could have lived without the 3-d I personally don't think it adds that much to the movie and on top of the fact I got a killer headache several hours later cause I wear contacts and that messes with the 3-d etc. I for 1 won't be going to see any movie in 3-d unless I absolutely have no other choice.

AJ on Feb 21, 2010

17

3D is a paradox. Everyone says that they'll support 3D if they get rid of the gimmicky "Look! It's 3D!" moments. But without those, isn't 3D kind of pointless? It added nothing to the experience during Avatar. It dulls the image and it really gives me a headache.

Governor on Feb 21, 2010

18

Why is James Cameron continue to be so arrogant? Ok, we get it, he's the 3D Guru, the IT go to guy for anything that's 3D related. Perhaps Hollywood should bestow the title 3D Tsar on him. Before we let Avatar's Technology impair our judgment, let's not forget that James Cameron stole the 1957 short story "Call Me Joe" from Science Fiction Author Poul Anderson. Anderson's book centers on a paraplegic — Ed Anglesey — who telepathically connects with an artificially created life form in order... to explore a harsh planet (in this case, Jupiter). Anglesey, like Avatar’s Jake Sully, revels in the freedom and strength of his artificial created body, battles predators on the surface of Jupiter, and gradually goes native as he spends more time connected to his artificial body. In both stories, the aliens are blue cat people. Avatar has great visuals and watching it in 3D really enhances the experience. It was a very entertaining movie and Director James Cameron manages to successfully transport us to a world that we have never seen before. Kudos to Jim for a very original cinematic adventure. However, he wouldn't have a hit film without a great story and all of those digital artists that helped him along the way. Again, he's very arrogant and refuses to share the spotlight. He really needs to stop show boating and start tooting other people's horns for a change. What an attention whore! For all this man's success, he certainly is insecure. He really needs to just shut the f..up! He's starting to sound as bad as that ex-hard-liner in chief Dick Cheney.

Jack Novelli on Feb 21, 2010

19

Personally, I hope they never drop 2D screenings, because people like me who have a lazy eye or vision in only one eye will then not be able to enjoy the films at all.

art seike on Feb 21, 2010

20

Honestly I think 3d is still kinda meh, it gives you more of the illusion that you're actually there until you try to focus away from where the director wants you to, and then you can't focus on something and it ruins the experience, half the fun I have with movies is noticing things that you aren't supposed to or are hidden, which you just can't do in 3d.

John I.G> on Feb 21, 2010

21

Listen. The 3-D in Avatar was QUITE stupid in many places. Oh, let's make the person walking past the camera in the foreground, who's completely out of focus THREE DIMENSIONAL SO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU"RE IN THE ROOM! Actually James, all you did was give me momentary headaches. The 3--D scenes that WERE impressive in Avatar were those completely C-G rendered roller coaster rides. Which, frankly from the trailers - LOOK MORE IMPRESSIVE IN ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND CLASH OF THE TITANS! All I really got from Avatar was - wow. Hopefully now people who spend too much time in their apartments will pay a visit to their local Arboretum, for a change. CORALINE was an example of a film that properly and creatively exploited 3-D - and in EVERY. SHOT. James Cameron's a self-proclaimed pioneer, but every time he opens his mouth, he proves he's really just God of his own sandbox. Give more credit to WETA, James. They're the ones who made all your poor EFX & design choices look so cool!

James Cameron: King Blowhard on Feb 21, 2010

22

AMEN #21

bltzie on Feb 21, 2010

23

Down with 3-D. Besided Avatar in 3-D sucked...why would I want to see Subtitles in 3-D? Cameron you are starting to annoy us, leave 3-D out of films.

Xerxex on Feb 21, 2010

24

I dont get it...The story was horrible and the only good thing about Avatar was the visuals. He is no fucking god and after all the praise Ive heard hes going down as the most overrated director in cinema history in my book. Not to mention every time he talks I get the sense that he is totally and utterly full of himself. Seriously like someone else said Ridley Scott is a far better director than him and you never hear anyone saying they should bow down to him.

Cody on Feb 21, 2010

25

Cameron is leading the way in 3D. Avatar is a great example of using 3D. Converting 2D to 3D is trailing his example. Clash of the Titans is a poor example of using 3D because of this. Cameron is right. I wont' say he's a god but he's certainly one of if not THE best filmmaker out there and not just for his films but because he commands the studios, not the other way around. If all directors treated the studios like children like he does then we'd have a hell of a better movie industry by far.

Darren Albert on Feb 21, 2010

26

God, I wish 3D faded away. It brings nothing new to a movie, except headaches. And so does James Cameron whenever he opens his goddamn mouth.

Daniel on Feb 21, 2010

27

25, I love filmmaker control and all, but if Avatar was the result of none studio intervention, then maybe thats a poor example.

Al on Feb 21, 2010

28

3D is a fad. James Cameron is a fad. Of course they go together! It's hard for me to ignore my bias for the guy. I think he's a Spielberg hack, and if I had a choice I'd rather watch a Ridley Scott or a Michael Bay film because at least they have a style all of their own. Cameron's films are always very formulaic, and while I'll admit Avatar was beautiful to look at....outside of the effects it's a pretty average sci fi story. I loved it in the theater, but I'm not looking forward to it's DVD release because the 3D element won't be as spectacular as it was in theaters. Which is really what this 3D craze is all about...trying to make going to the theater worth while again for those who prefer the comfort of their own home. Whether film makers do it wrong, or do it right isn't going to make a difference. It's still a gimmick, and all gimmicks are temporary because what may help them at the moment, will eventually become overkill and cause problems greater than the ones they're facing at the moment. Here's 2 easy red flags against proceeding too far with 3D film making. 1) Price. 3D films are more expensive, and price increases are what started the decrease in theater attendance to begin with. Adding a gimmick will work for awhile to bring people in, but once the "seen that done that" effect kicks in Hollywood is going to be pouring money on a product very few are going to be willing to pay for....so it will become a gamble. "Blockbusters" are a gamble already. Adding 3D only increases the margin of error financially. 2) Shrinking the market. There's a very large percentage of people who cannot enjoy a 3D movie because it either gives them headaches or motion sickness. Theaters are not going to continue to show a 3D version and a 2D version. One will have to go if 3D keeps growing simply because there's not enough screens. For example where I live Avatar is ONLY playing in 3D at the moment, and several people I know would like to see it but are hoping it will eventually go to the cheap theaters in 2D because seeing it in 3D is physically not possible for them. Keep in mind that the largest part of our population is entering senior citizen country.....3D isn't going to work for them (or their movies. No one wants to see "It's complicated" in 3D!) Enjoy 3D while it lasts, because wrong or right....it simply can only be an option for the time being.

ImaginaryVisionary on Feb 21, 2010

29

The problem is the most directors doesnt want to shoot in 3D. The 3D way is goofy and just something for nerds. Directors want to make good movies based on solid storys with good actors. They dont care about how cool is this effect or this effect. They ask the question: why should I shoot in 3D when it works in 2D? Why kill a Zombie with a laser pistole, when a classic chainsaw works too? Now Hollywood saw that others made money with 3D. So they will use 3D until the hype is over and earn money with the hype. The most of the people and kids doesnt care if the movie is shoot in 3D or converted in 3D. They just need to read "IN 3D." - and they run to the cinema and buy a ticket. And if converting is cheaper than make a movie in 3D from the beginning and they earn in this way enough money then its enough for Hollywood. Cameron is pissed of because some years ago nobody wanted to give him money to produce his Avatar movie. Maybe some guys in Hollywood even laughed at him. Now he made his AVATAR movie (with this bad Pocahontas story) and he was successful. Now he can laugh and play the wise guy etc. But he knows too that everything is about money and that the most directors are focused in storys and not in gimmicks. Well, I dont need 3D. I want just a great story with good dramatic storyline, good characters, interestings plotpoints, good dialogues and a good end. Thats all.

Millus on Feb 21, 2010

30

Yes, please let's all bloat James Cameron's ego even more. He really needs the publicity.

Zach D. on Feb 21, 2010

31

#21 - I don't believe that for a second. It sounds like you're just complaining that you get headaches and can't enjoy 3D because it doesn't look right. Having someone walk past a camera and be blurry in the foreground is smart filmmaking, whether in 2D or 3D. But having spears and other crap pointing out of the camera at the audience is stupid. That's gimmicky, cheesy filmmaking and I think that's what you're thinking about. How can you think that Cameron is "just God of his own sandbox" based on the things he says? Yes, Weta and ILM deserve a lot of credit for this (and lots of great looking movies), but that doesn't mean Cameron doesn't deserve some credit as well. He pioneered most of the technology and cameras that they used. He wants 3D to be used properly in Hollywood, not improperly. I think you're getting confused about the kind of 3D that we want to see more of, and the kind of 3D that we don't want to see at all.

Alex Billington on Feb 21, 2010

32

Hey, Cameron, 3D has NO business being involved in FILM. When are idiots going to realise that 3D adds nothing to the film experience? This is how you distinguish a real film and a poor imitator these days: A; A great, true film draws you in via characters and story. And B; a bunch of pretty colours with no substance rely on a generic visual enhancement to get passive, sleeping morons into the cinema seats, to the point where you are so overwhelmed with the visuals, your strange mind perplexes and forgets what a movie really is. And Cameron made the latter! Seriously, if 3D had a place it would be in VIDEOGAMES and virtual simulations. Avatar was painful and utterly terrible. It isn't a film. It's migraine-induced spasms at the hand of a guy who shot so far up his ass that he's currently circling around his ear lobes. Any higher and he'll implode. You really think Cameron is one of the best film-makers out there? There was a time when he made great films. But give him a small budget nowadays and I guarantee he will crumble. Great directors can make great films for a tiny fraction of Avatar's stupid budget. Example = MOON.

Mr Drebin's Extended Wallet on Feb 21, 2010

33

I half agree with Cameron. Yes, the decision should rest with the filmmakers and not the studios, but I can completely understand their hesitance in creating a 3D picture from the beginning. Now that it's "the big new thin" everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon, but there's no guarantee that the technology will catch on yet.

Nada Nuff on Feb 21, 2010

34

So true lol.

Robbie on Feb 21, 2010

35

He does have a point, but.... Bafta loser! Bafta loser! /sorry

Sleepykid on Feb 21, 2010

36

well done to the hurt locker well deserved awards.

DEADPOOL,MERC WITH A MOUTH on Feb 21, 2010

37

@ Alex Billington: I guess we'll wait and see if converting Clash of the Titans & Alice in Wonderland is more of a tranformative experience or not. But did you see Coraline? Every single shot was framed like an exquisite classical sculpture or painting , and what you guys have been calling "gimmicky" on this website can be overdone - yes. (And it's entirely possible that Tim Burton has overdone it w/ his Alice In Wonderland vision.) I did enjoy Avatar on IMAX - 3D, very much so in fact. But are the scenes "shot" in 3-D really what was impressive about that film? It's not like any of the human actors jumped out. It has everything to do with the backgrounds & vistas behind them. And those shots were completely designed in computers, they weren't "Shot" in 3-D (sure he's got his God Camera technique but, whatever.). We all saw several movie trailers in 3-D. How to Train Your Dragon (which looked VERY impressive) , Alice in Wonderland (Which might be nausea inducing, or might be really, really enjoyable). Clash of the Titans would be the only "film" converted to 3-D. So - we all have to wait & see, really.

Who Would James Cameron Bomb? on Feb 21, 2010

38

I thought 3D was just a stupid gimmick (and it was) until Avatar. It was done there the way it should be. I just get tired of the ones who post that it was bad, annoying, unimpressive etc. just to feel all superior. Like it's not good enough for your high, sophisticated standards. Like if you say you were unimpressed by Avatar, it shows how much better you are than everyone. Get over yourself! I think Cameron is incredibly egocentric, but Avatar was very, very well done. Incluing the 3D.

jjboldt on Feb 21, 2010

39

It's going to be interesting to see if the Avatar phenom holds up on home theatre systems when it comes out in Blu Ray and not 3D. As for 3D I don't care for it and think that it's waaayyy over rated. As long as good movies that are done in 3D are released in the regular format, I'll be happy.

Sam Shadey on Feb 21, 2010

40

3D in Avatar is the most natural (for me it equals "the best") stereoscopy ever made in a film. Every aspect of real depth is made precisely. Even planets seen from a large distance seems to be completely flat... like in reality! (most filmmakers would make them unnatural, "spherical" and audience would love it - isn't it funny? ;p) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hvmztOoc6jE/Szwb5xopNXI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/tpixJmLJtpk/s400/pandora.JPG Please... don't even compare 3D in Avatar to 3D in Alice... Read something about eyes convergence, learn about good stereoscopy and then start criticizing the Master of 3D.

cicool on Feb 21, 2010

41

38, I dont hate 3D to feel superior, I hate 3D just because it annoys the hell out of me. - It adds nothing - It detracts a lot - Its more money then its worth - And it makes everything be rack focused

Al on Feb 21, 2010

42

Yes its a neat gimmick, done well and not as an after thought (Clash Of The Titans I'm referring to you) and it gives me a headache!

TediusTed on Feb 21, 2010

43

>Personally, I hate 3D. It doesn't add anything to my experience, makes the screen harder to look >at, and leaves me with a headache. It also detracts from that classic cinema experience, IMO. >YK on Feb 21, 2010 ...and #21 LOL....try wearing the glasses they give you next time! AVATAR in 3D was awesome...first time I could say that about a 3D movie... All these other films are like 3D Lite...half the calories, and none of the flair.

Frank N. Stein on Feb 21, 2010

44

Dont be afraid to name drop James, you own Tinsletown! NAME DROP

Gabe the Accuser on Feb 21, 2010

45

Can't wait to see Kathryn Bigelow's "Hurt Locker" kick James Cameron and Avatar's scrawny blue ass at the Oscars. Bigelow, Cameron's third wife was married to him from 1989 -1991. Jimbo is now on wife number five and they just keep getting younger. I heard that he had the eye for 32 year old Zoe Saldana the actress who played Na'vi Princess Neytiri and who also appeared as Uhura in Star Trek. Apparently she wasn't interested Cameron and his inflated ego, so Jimbo is now allegedly trying to hook up with actress Rachel Nichols, 30 who played Gaila the Orionian Green Woman from Star Trek. If he can't tap the blue chick, why not the green one? Only three other women have ever been nominated for Best Film Director and none of them won it. Maybe Bigelow can show us all a little poetic justice and knock Cameron off his High Dire Horse. My fingers are crossed.

jknovelli on Feb 21, 2010

46

I watched both 2D and 3D Avatar. The difference is immersion. Not every film needs immersion but Avatar is perfect because of it. For some I want to maintain my distance, for others I need to be drawn in. If a movie is bad I definitely do not watch it in 3D. So word of mouth or the word of my trusted movie critics will become more important in my decision to walk into a 3D thearter.

Blank on Feb 21, 2010

47

if you think 3D is great you are an asshole. if you like James Cameron you are an asshole. Why? Because both of those two things are as shallow as they come. 3D is the biggest gimmick ever and detracts from what actually makes a film great. Its story, its acting, its direction. James Cameron has now become the greatest overrated director of our time. He directed the sequel to Alien which is perhaps one of the best science fiction/horror films of the eighties, and turned its sequel into an action movie Dont get me wrong I love Aliens, but its the perfect example of how James Cameron makes shallow movies. TRUE LIES? You are really going to tell me that hes a great director for making TRUE LIES? You have to be kidding me. Anyways, I thought after Slumdog Millionaire took over the Oscars last year I was done with them. I plan on watching them this year but If Avatar wins any of the major awards (Direction, Picture) this will be my last year watching the Oscars.

betterchill on Feb 21, 2010

48

#41 -Yes it does add something. Saying it adds nothing is riduculous. -Detracts? As just stated, I think it adds. -Yes I do agree it is still more money than it's worth though. -Rack focused? I see a notable difference in Avatar than other 3D. I'm not a geeky fan-boy or some huge Cameron fan by any means, I just think Avatar deserves some props. I was genuinely impressed. Especially during the battle scenes where I thought the 3D really stood out. I do agree with the article that I hope if studios are going to do more 3D, do it during production, not in post.

jjboldt on Feb 21, 2010

49

@ JJBolt - I count myself among the impressed - HOWEVER - really none of us - including James Cameron - can say whether a general audience will be able to tell a huge difference btw. the 'subtle - 3-D' of Cameron's nifty, weighty cameras - or the post / digital 3-D processes being experimented w/ by companies like Real - D. The fact is - James Cameron is arrogant. We can remain divided as to what degree he's earned the right to be. He admits he's arrogant. He comes off as arrogant. When the fact remains that none of us - including James Cameron - can say whether general audiences will prefer or even know the difference btw. his method and somebody else's. Don't get me wrong. I like his movies. But I also think our culture is enriched by its diversity of competition - and the fact is , he isn't the only filmmaker or individual who's been researching into new 3-D technology. But the way he talks - it's clear he thinks he's the only one who knows a thing or two.

Who Would James Cameron Bomb? on Feb 21, 2010

50

These naysayer's your comment won't make a difference you guys said that 3d won't work and this movie will fail at box office but as far as I see the box office numbers tell the truth about the movie Avatar and it's success in 3d .People who liked the movie in 3d are going to watching again for movie experience and who didn't like won't see it anymore and would like to see the movie in 2d.I think it's matter of choice in which format people wanna watch movie if people are gonna pay more for 3d format it will certainly give a boost to 3d and those naysayers will have learn to accept that upcoming are begin made in 3d.I would like to see 3d used same in Avatar in other movies too because it's great 3d.

joe_6285 on Feb 22, 2010

51

I wish a studio executive had told him not to shoot Avatar in 3D and work more on storytelling and dialogue. Seriously, 3D is just a lame gimmick. Any movie should be about story and not lame gimmicks. The special f/x and everything that follows should help tell the story, not pull the story along. I feel sorry for any directors who are being forced to have their movies put into 3D. Just because the technology is around to do something, doesn't mean you have to use it. You could put bullet time in every movie you make, but it doesn't mean you should. People like 3D right now because it's new, but give it a year, when everyone is doing it, and it will get old quick. It will lose its magic and then you'll have all of these movies that were designed to be shown in 3D, that nobody wants to watch in 3D, and they'll just be junk. If you want to make a good sci-fi movie, look at the stuff made from Star Wars to Jurassic Park. Sure, they had groundbreaking special effects for the time and a lot made good money, but it wouldn't have made such a long lasting impact if the stories weren't so good. A lot of the movies made back then are looking old because the f/x aren't as good as they are now, but they last because the stories are so good. Don't just put it in 3D, or shove a bunch of CGI on a screen, and expect it to be the best sci-fi movie of all time.

Brad on Feb 22, 2010

52

@ jknovelli (#45) You sound more than a little bitter--did you know Bigelow personally? Your post didn't touch on the topic at all. No one came here to read your rant about how much you dislike Cameron and his rumored love affairs.

Nada Nuff on Feb 22, 2010

53

"Look I'm James Cameron, you know, the guy who's in love with myself. I'm the only one who knows how to make movies, and use the 3D gimmik as it should be used." Well fuck you James Cameron!

I hate Cameron on Feb 22, 2010

54

If there are two things I'm tired of hearing about it's James Cameron and 3d. Avatar was nothing but fluff. Shiny, pretty, politically driven fluff. And 3d is a gimmick and almost always a waste of time. I watched Avatar in Imax 3d and didn't even notice. James, please get back to making the type of movies I love: Aliens, Abyss, Terminator... in 2d.

Joshua m on Feb 22, 2010

55

I found your 3-d distracting Cameron, and would have preferred Avatar in 2d. Great flick though.

bozo on Feb 22, 2010

56

@ 55: Avatar IS available in 2D.

Nada Nuff on Feb 22, 2010

57

I first saw Avatar in 3-D on a regular screen , and found it interesting but nothing too remarkable. But when I finally got to see it on Imax, I must admit - that fully stereoscopic view experience really WAS something! The thing is - the trailers before it: "Alice in Wonderland" , "How to Train Your Dragon" , etc. really all looked great too! Having worked with children, I can say that James Cameron is the rich kid who got to use a certain toy first, and is whining because THE TOY is why everyone likes him - so he doesn't want anyone else to USE IT ! It's really that simple. I've met fully grown adults that act just like that. And they're total pains in the ass. Excellent preachy ripoff Sci Fi staple rehash ride , Jim. And yes, I'm impressed by your new toy. Now step out of the sandbox so the other kids can play, too.

Who Would James Cameron Bomb? on Feb 22, 2010

58

I think the 2.4 bil at the box office (most of which is from 3D screenings) disagrees with all the naysayers.

Sam101 on Feb 22, 2010

59

LOL, but there were guys like you when they added color and sound to film too...

GK on Feb 22, 2010

60

I hate to get caught up in the flame-style posts, but who are all these dummies stating "3-D adds nothing to the experience!" That quote is a dozen times above, and is completely factually inaccurate. It adds three dimensions. If you have eye-issues, those are not the norm and quite obviously, the masses have been amazed by what he did with this effect. Get a hold of yourselves people. This is the biggest movie in history by a mile, and it's because Jim did a great job delivering something most all of us have thoroughly enjoyed. In 3D. I'd love to see it a second time, and I'd only see it in IMAX as it was intended.

Mark D on Feb 22, 2010

61

@ Nada Nuff (#52) I didn't realize that you were speaking for everyone and apparently it is you who came here to read the rants about how much people dislike Cameron because that's pretty much what the majority of people in this forum are saying. Out of all the posts that are here, you comment on mine? I don't get it, why do you even care? You certainly have a wild hair up you as this morning. Perhaps I struck a sensitive note when I mentioned the rumored love affairs. Being unfaithful are we? If so, I really don't give a shit what you do, no judgment here Nada Nuff. In fact I really could care less about Cameron's love life either. What I posted was for shit and giggles, however in your case just shit. Now, why don't you and James Cameron go off some place and lick each others assholes. You can smooch his crack until your hearts content and James will love every moment of it.

jknovelli on Feb 22, 2010

62

@jknovelli: Your attempt at damage control was weak. Thanx for confirming that you are, indeed, fascinated with James' personal life and have no interest in adding to the discussion.

Nada Nuff on Feb 22, 2010

63

the james cameron haters are a sad lot....the reason his movies have universal appeal globally as can be seen with Titanic and Avatar is due to bleeding edge tech + simple straight foward storytelling(yes not complex) that the mainstream loves. The mainstream is not the nit pick crowd that we get on forums but people who are going to the theater for escapist fun and thats exactly what Avatar delivers. I believed 3D was a cheap gimmick up to the point of Avatar's release which was done to me in a way as not to distract but enhance the viewing experience.

monal on Feb 22, 2010

64

monal its still a cheap gimmick. subtitles in 3-D? really?

Xerxex on Feb 22, 2010

65

#60, I think what everyone is referring to is that 3D adds nothing to the story of a movie. In a way I see your point. 3D adds something in the same way CGI effects add realism, but overall both 3D and special effects can take away from the story of a film....which renders it's use neutral if the story can't stand on it's own two legs. While I'll admit I was happy to see that bloated piece of crap Titanic finally get knocked off it's perch, it's bitter sweet to have it topped by another Cameron film. I did enjoy Avatar but it was pure eye candy. The story was pretty thin, but I have hopes for his sequels because either they'll get better or Cameron will finally pull a Lucas and ruin his baby by making some terrible sequels. I agree that Cameron is the most over rated director of our time, if not ever, so I'm just waiting for the day when everyone wises up. I still think 3D is a gimmick, but I have an interesting question in my mind. **Would I or any of you have enjoyed seeing the Dark Knight in Avatar style 3D?** (I love that film, wish it would've been the one to top Titanic, and as much as I wouldn't want to bastardize the sheer cinematic brilliance of that film part of me would love to see that in 3D just for the fun of it!)

ImaginaryVisionary on Feb 22, 2010

66

@ImaginaryVisionary: I saw Dark Knight on OMNIMAX (which was admittedly a bit much - like being inside a giant Eyeball!) and I must say certain of those scenes, filmed on Imax cameras were simply breathtaking. The thing is - the film language of celluloid has developed in part due to auteurs like Coppola and Scorcese (who, interestingly enough, were peers & friends of Spielberg's, back in the day). So much of Chris Nolan's work exploits that language and its use of mood lighting. I could see it - but just think how insane it would be to see a much darker movie than Avatar - like DK - in which characters often emerge out of the darkness, in keeping w/ the tone. Would it be like seeing moving shadows , dark on dark at times? You've posed a very interesting question...

Django3000 on Feb 22, 2010

67

I think it's a bit like atomic energy, it could be a cheap way to create power for good, but it also could be an even better way to wipe out millions of people. Maybe like Einstein said his involvement in creating that monster was a mistake, Cameron will say the same, either way, it's just movies, film companies needed a gimmick to get people in, also 3d is harder to pirate. Hollywood follows trends just like everyone else, assassins now become breakdancing freerunners like in James Bond, the insane amount of comic book films(not complaining too much about that). I still haven't watched Avatar, but always I hear from everyone I speak too, 'effects were great, not much of a story', which is sadly what I think of when I watch a Michael Bay film? Not really mastering the medium of cinema.

Crapola on Feb 22, 2010

68

@ Nada Nuff (#52 & 62) Just curious, what is it that you've added to the discussion? Thus far, your contribution has been pretty two dimensional and not quite as animated as others. What are you, the self appointed policeman of this forum who randomly makes comments on what you deem to be moronic? Well, thanks for noticing jackass! Your fascination with this discussion leads me to believe that you must be really lonely. Perhaps you need to do some of your own damage control and figure out a way that you can be less of a douche.

jknovelli on Feb 22, 2010

69

The 3D in Avatar is just as revolutionary as sound was in The Jazz Singer and color was in The Wizard of Oz. I can't understand how so many of you other posters could hate 3D so much. Cameron has finally put it to GREAT use, making every 3D experience before it a distance memory. Avatar is the greatest 3D film ever made. If these other filmmakers can't deliver anywhere near as brilliantly as Avatar has delivered, then, it will continue to be known as the greatest 3D film.

Luke on Feb 23, 2010

70

Show me Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS in 3-D , and I'll show you a cinematic revolution. i.e. - Some films are already revolutionary. Or should I say, some revolutions have already been filmed, stereo sound, color, 3-D unecessary. But hey - it's about getting butts in those seats, right? So seriously, show me METROPOLIS in 3-D. It's one of the most powerful & greatest films ever made, and it still holds up. AND - no one's been able to top it since. PLUS: great, innovative & imaginative script. Oh - yeah. One o' those things. Forgot 'bout those...

Django3Million on Feb 23, 2010

71

@ jknovelli (#68) I have not contributed much to the topic because the other posters have echoed my feelings on the subject. Anything I said would just be pointless repetition. Maturity is learning when to speak, not just learning to how to speak. Sometimes it's better to keep quiet--a lesson you probably should pick up. I subscribed to these comments because I found the topic interesting, and wanted to respond again later if someone said something that piqued my interest. Reading your post is like hitting a speed bump at 75 MPH. Everyone else is talking about James Cameron, Avatar and 3D, and you come in babbling about Cameron's ex wives and the women he's (allegedly) tried to hit on. I'm sure there are some tabloid-esque websites out there where you can't rant about how much you hate him, but bringing it up here is ridiculous. Then, after failing to cover up your colossal mistake and redeem yourself, you attack me by classicly making asinine comments about my private life. Just like you did with Cameron (I'm starting to see a trend here). Your inexplicable fascination with the personal lives of strangers is of no interest to me, but I'm sure you can find other people out there who are bored enough to give even you a listening ear.

Nada Nuff on Feb 23, 2010

72

Was going to comment but #21 pretty much said anything I was going to say. 3D is just "meh" to me. It's the story that makes a movie good, otherwise it's just another Michael Bay flick with extra special fx, if you like that sort of thing well I hope 3D goes all the way for you. As for me, I only want to see it in my porn. (i kid, i kid) And to be honest I didn't even think "Avatra" was that great of a movie.

jaromir on Feb 23, 2010

73

I've seen two films in 3D, UP and Avatar. I do not plan to see anymore films in 3D. Definitely not ones that have been converted to 3D.

Moviegimp on Feb 23, 2010

74

Frankly, I havent seen one of you get this yet.... We are in the MIDDLE of a revolution. A Battle. It has been going on since 1826. Its the Evolution of film, and it all started with the first photograph. My point is - 3D films will continue to be made, Film will continue to be shot, and Digital will keep trying to "take over". New ways to watch movies, shoot movies, make movies, (so on and so fourth) will continue to be developed. The "end" is no where near. SO... In the future, there will be as many 3-d films to non 3-d films made, as there are Digital films to "film" films. So methinks that most of you will have to eat your words about "not watching any more 3-d films" because there are going to be many many more. We've been heading in the 3-d direction for a very long time. Cameron or not, we would've gotten here.

Hans L. on Feb 23, 2010

75

Though he should be commended for the superb 3D he pulled off in Avatar, it's a mystery why Cameron would pimp Panasonic's inferior headache-causing shutter glass 3D television technology. It's like dating the most beautiful girl in school then getting her home and dressing her in a burlap sack and swallowing just enough syrup of ipecac to make one want to barf. The "Avatar" of 3D TV technology exists, but it has no champions of Cameron's stature. Unless you count Steve Wozniak . . . http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/drive_to_discover&id=7013471

DKSweet on Feb 24, 2010

76

Coming from someone who worked on Avatar - What he's talking about is not taking the time to convert the scenes right. Not nec. shooting in 3d. He was personally impressed by the shots I worked on. As far as clash of the titains goes, he's talking about the company putting that trash out in 3d in a matter of weeks. It takes much longer to do a conversion correctly. These quotes are taken out of context. James Cameron is one of the biggest perfectionists in the business, why would he have used conversion if it weren't a viable option.

Don't know what you're talking about on Mar 3, 2010

77

To tell the truth I think it is a fad. The movies that came out on 3D can be seen in 2d and its just as good. I am already seeing the studios trying to cram 3D into new movies. I already saw previews of movies that are coming out on 3D just to ride the 3D train. I already predict this will not last if they start making crapping movies in 3D just to get the extra money from movie tickets.

Ed on Apr 3, 2010

78

I was reluctant to go and See Avatar from the beginning, because I knew it could not has been as good as the marketing say , and because I knew James Cameron as He was just outa school in Rome as he directed Piranha 2,( back in 1981). What make me go was his hoopla about his newest INVENTION and breakthrough technology in 3D , ( His multimillion dollar camera rig, capable of converging). As Anyone who has work in 3D knows, forcing convergence on the viewer, can get the background out of the reach of the human eyes, because you will need to DIVERGE the eyes to see it, ( a feature that only few people in the world are capable to do!!!). As it happens it took me only few minutes to realize that Cameron should be banned from getting a job in 3D directing,if the format has to survive. My headache started BEFORE the 3D effects cud be appreciated , because Cameron will take any unwanted opportunity to SHAKE the freaking camera. I actually went to see Avatar on IMAX, and as you know Hollywood cud never embrace the format because it need a special kind of Photographer, who treated the viewer with respect, and allow the eyes to pan a tilt with smoothness, ( My favorite one is Greg Mac Gillibray). But the "piece of resistance" was the scene were there are many astronauts hanging on wires ( please!!!...Just imagine if That scene was done like the floating scene on Apollo 13!!!), or for that matter like in Final Fantasy,The spirit within),and the cameras converged so much that the background was unwatchable. All and all, the movie was painful to watch, I have friends that discouraged me from seeing it in 3D , much less in Imax format. About Cameron view about post 3D, vs native 3D, I agree, but what about a NEW technology that make 3D look like Holograms , and resolve the problems of Headaches , and the flat car boarding effect? Fear not, Such tech is already invented, I called Holorama Tm. Those who know my name will know that I am not kidding. I am looking forward to see Cameron face when he realize that he missed the boat,(as big as Titanic).

Hugo zuccarelli on May 28, 2010

79

@ Hugo: Let's see it. Put up or shut up.

Nada Nuff on May 28, 2010