Oscar-winning director James Cameron believes that 3-D is the next big jump for filmmaking, adding that he sees a day when it will be as ubiquitous as color or sound in films.
“I’m talking about a future when you don’t have to put “in 3D” on the movie poster anymore, the same way that you don’t put “in color” on posters anymore. Imagine that point in time, when 3D is just a natural, innate part of viewing,” Cameron tells Entertainment Weekly.
Cameron said that all movies would be better in 3-D, including this year’s Oscar winner, “The Hurt Locker.” And the director also admits that 3-D may be ramping up too quickly for the market and audiences to bear.
“Everybody got a little ahead of themselves. The studios were taking movies and just slamming them into 3D with slapdash conversions that didn’t live up to a standard of quality that would justify charging extra for the ticket. So people started feeling ripped off,” Cameron says. “I think we’re in a period where it’s recalibrating the market. But even now, even after all that, the 3-D movies are still performing well above their 2-D versions.”
“The Hurt Locker” was directed by Cameron’s ex-wife Katherine Bigalow and beat out his movie “Avatar” at the Oscars.
And speaking of “Avatar,” Cameron insists that the new edition that is set to hit theaters in a few weeks is “for the fans.”
“This rerelease is a limited special edition. It’s just an experience you can have with your family at the end of the summer,” he says. “The last hurrah in theaters. People can watch the original release — it still exists indefinitely on DVD and Blu-ray — or they can watch this new one. We’re going to do an even longer version that will exist only on DVD. There are people who felt that they could have spent more time in Pandora. So we’re giving them that.”
Yes, that means we’re getting a longer cut on DVD at some point (probably in time for the holidays). And that also means there will be at least three cuts of the film running around.
And while Cameron says he’s grateful to the fans for embracing the world of Pandora, he thinks reports of those being depressed by not being able to live there aren’t entirely accurate.
“I suspect that’s hyperbole. Everybody writes in purple prose in the blogosphere. But I would hate to think that people really were getting depressed. If they really feel that they’re not getting enough of the wonders of the natural world in their life, then they should just go on a damn walk in the woods. Or go snorkeling,” he says.
Meanwhile, Cameron says that he’s hard at work on the novel of the film and he insists it’s not a novelization.
“I hate that term. A novelization is when the merchandising department hires a hack writer for $15,000 to adapt my script. This is the novel,” he says. “It’s a different art form, a different medium. It’s more inside the minds of the characters. It gets into Grace’s back-story, how she came to the planet as a young scientist. It sets up all the seeds of what will happen over the greater story arc.
Cameron should know what a hack writer is since he's that and a director too.
OK James.
Avatar--which was cool but not the best movie as far as story was concerned--sort of made me forgive you for Titanic.
But ALL movies being better in 3-D?
Now you're talking Crazy Talk.
Next you'll be saying that The Elephant Man would be better in colour.
. . . by his own description, it sure sounds like a novelization to me . . .
As far as every movie being better in 3D, it points to his total lack of understanding and awareness that the story is by far the most important part of the movie . . . at least for those of us who have not been Pandoranized.
Seriously, his first effort in this supposed trilogy ensured I won't waste my time with the other two. Sadly, it looks like I will be in the minority.
On a brighter note . . . uh, sorry; no brighter note here.
RE: His statement that all movies would be better in 3D.
You guys are taking that way too literally. Yes, there may be some movies that would not be "better" in 3D .. as there are some movies that would not be better in color .. or 5.1 surround sound. He knows that.
What he means is that today the default is color and someday people will expect the default to also be 3D.
He is also right in that many studios have jumped on the 3D bandwagon way too early with no understanding on how to do proper 3D ... ie. you need to shoot in 3D, NOT CONVERT A 2D INTO 3D (that sucks). As well as understanding how to shoot 3D when you do have stereo cameras (not as easy as it looks)
Personally, I don't think the "default" should ever be 3-D.
3-D should be saved for spectacle.
Does every weepy tween flick like "Charlie St Cloud" need to be in 3-D?
Would "Fried Green Tomatoes" have been better in 3-D?
I stand by my opinion: Cameron is talkin' Crazy Talk.
I liken his statement to saying all books would be better as graphic novels.
3D essentially offers a different experience; almost a different medium.
Maybe audiences will be dragged along kicking and screaming (once 3-D are all that is offered), but I'll repeat that aside the "purty" factor, 3-D offers nothing.
I stand by my opinion that 3-D is worthless. The only time I've ever gained something out of the technology is at the IMAX space station flick. Every other time, I don't see the effect working and I get fidgety halfway through the movie because of the lame glasses.
The pointless use of the obligatory "coming right at you" moments also drives a nail in the coffin for me. I groan from the cliche and the fact that I can't see the effect working. It really pulls me right out of any experience I was supposed to be enjoying.
TallGrrl:
3-D should be saved for spectacle.
Does every weepy tween flick like “Charlie St Cloud” need to be in 3-D?
Would “Fried Green Tomatoes” have been better in 3-D?
I stand by my opinion: Cameron is talkin’ Crazy Talk.
ejdalise:
Maybe audiences will be dragged along kicking and screaming (once 3-D are all that is offered), but I’ll repeat that aside the “purty” factor, 3-D offers nothing.
===========================
Do we want to get rid of color or stereo sound?
We hear stereo in real life. At first films were silent, then came mono sound and eventually stereo surround sound.
We see in color. At first films were b&w, now color is the norm.
We see in 3D. At first films were in 2D but, eventually, 3D *will* be the norm.
“I hate that term. A novelization is when the merchandising department hires a hack writer for $15,000 to adapt my script. This is the novel. It’s a different art form, a different medium. It’s more inside the minds of the characters. It gets into Grace’s back-story, how she came to the planet as a young scientist. It sets up all the seeds of what will happen over the greater story arc."
Or a novelization is when the merchandising department hires an established writer to adapt your script INTO a different marketable medium that gets more in-depth with your characters and settings, delving into their backstories, and creating a much more lush and meaningful setting that your fancy-dan moving pictures couldn't because the audience would get bored.
Don't get me wrong: I've read quite a few bad novelizations that do nothing more than what Cameron is describing. I've also read some stunning novelizations that either enhance my appreciation of the film or, in some cases, eclipse the film itself and become the only way I will partake of the story.
Lumping together all writers who take a movie tie-in job as talentless hacks is a great disservice to the tireless efforts of some of the best in the field. James Cameron has lost most of what credibility he had with me by spitting out those demeaning words.
Do we want to get rid of color or stereo sound?
We hear stereo in real life. At first films were silent, then came mono sound and eventually stereo surround sound.
We see in color. At first films were b&w, now color is the norm.
We see in 3D. At first films were in 2D but, eventually, 3D *will* be the norm
===================================
No, we don't want to get rid of colour, stereo etc.
But every film doesn't have to be in colour either.
Like I said regarding : The Elephant Man...and even Eraserhead.
There's always going to be something magical about the play of shadow and light, shades of black, etc.
Same with stereo.
Look, I'm just saying that 3-D everything isn't necessary.
It takes the "specialness" of it away when it's made commonplace.
That's all I'm sayin'.
If I may add to TallGrrl's black and white list, I contribute "Schindler's List."
From the Wikipedia article:
The decision to shoot the film mainly in black and white lent to the documentary-style of cinematography, which cinematographer Janusz Kami?ski compared to German Expressionism and Italian neorealism. Kami?ski said that he wanted to give a timeless sense to the film, so the audience would "not have a sense of when it was made." Spielberg was following suit with "[v]irtually everything I've seen on the Holocaust... which have largely been stark, black and white images." Universal chairman Tom Pollock asked Spielberg to shoot the film in a color negative, to allow color VHS copies of the film to be sold, but Spielberg did not want "to beautify events."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_list
Angel-A is a great B&W film.
@Richard - not sure about the argument "we see in 3-D". We live in 3-D, and the 3-D effect out of a movie screen is not even remotely like the world we live in.
If you ever go to Epcot (Florida Disney park), you can come close to the experience of real life with their 360deg films (not in 3-D last time I was there). Stuff is going on all around you, and even without depth being represented, it is much closer to what we experience in the real world than what passes for 3-D right now.
Having some depth perception effect added to a flat screen adds nothing. Your brain has already worked out the spatial relationship between the objects. It does that even when looking at a photograph.
Besides, true 3-D would allow you to shift your head and see around objects. If that were the case, the base information in the picture would change depending where you sat in the theater. Then you could truly watch a movie multiple times and see new things, new perspectives each time . . . provided you sat at different angles for each viewing.
Not the case with movies right now, and it won't be the case in the foreseeable future.
So, again, nothing is added, nothing is improved, nothing is gained. It should not even be called 3-D. It should be called FDP - - Faux Depth Perception.
Mind you, I don't fault those who get a kick out of it. I just don't want to be forced to watch it, and while I respect your decision to like that sort of effect, understand not everyone finds it enthralling, and some of us find it positively annoying and distracting.
I'm not on the 3D movie haters bandwagon but I think until you can make movies in 3D without the glassess and have a truely immersive experience it's not something I'm really excited about, just yet. That being said I think there are some movies that are taylor made for 3D like James Camerons Imax ocean documentry or Avatar. There are also other movies where the 3D effect would really make the movie somethin special.
In the end it's about the characters and writing so maybe I'm getting too old but that's the kind of stuff that draws me to a movie. However, I will probably go see the re-release of Avatar in 3D this weekend because I missed it the first time around.