If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   James Cameron blasts 3-D blockbusters   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 39
    More: Ironic, humans, Kate Bosworth, Alfonso Cuaron, Kaley Cuoco, Scott Disick, Iron Man, Audrina Patridge, Movieline  
•       •       •

3121 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 05 Jul 2013 at 8:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-05 07:55:51 PM
Yeah, whatever. Just go back to reading Harlan Ellison and Phillip K. Dick novels until you "invent" your next big thing that seems suspiciously familiar, jerkface.
 
2013-07-05 09:08:02 PM
He's not necessarily blasting them. He's blasting Hollywood for unecessarily churning out movies that don't need to be in 3D.
 
2013-07-05 09:08:05 PM
img149.imageshack.us


was

media.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx

with a much (muuuuuuuch) larger budget and Kate Winslet's bare mams.

No, seriouslym watch them back to back (as i chanced upon doing a few months back) and you'll see that everything that's in the former was "appropriated" and given a very nontransparent remix from the latter by J.C.
 
2013-07-05 09:10:22 PM
...very transparent...

/Time to go home and sleep the sleep of the dead and buried for three days.
 
2013-07-05 09:15:49 PM
Hold up a sec here, Cameron. Are you trying to tell me that Hollywood has jumped on the latest trend and, rather than using it to advance the art of filmmaking, is hastily beating it into a bloody pulp? This is unprecidented!
 
2013-07-05 09:32:42 PM
Just let someone else write the script, please.
 
2013-07-05 09:40:05 PM

Neums: He's not necessarily blasting them. He's blasting Hollywood for unecessarily churning out movies that don't need to be in 3D.


Then that cocksucker can get off his ass and make Nature Trail to Hell, thus ending the need for any more 3d movie, at least until they make Nature Trail to Hell part 2.
 
2013-07-05 09:42:05 PM
If only there were some way he could have made this statement from another identity of some sort... A "mouthpiece"..no thats not the right word.. A lookalike maybe?
 
2013-07-05 09:44:17 PM

Spadababababababa Spadina Bus: Hold up a sec here, Cameron. Are you trying to tell me that Hollywood has jumped on the latest trend and, rather than using it to advance the art of filmmaking, is hastily beating it into a bloody pulp? This is unprecidented!


And for the sake of nothing but making money! I, for one, am shocked and appalled.
 
2013-07-05 09:46:18 PM
The only real selling point for Avatar was its "3D". I don't see how Cameron is some 3D guru. It's the same concept they had in the 50s. It's 2 2D layers. It's like a pop up book. It's a gimmick, just like it was in the 50s and the 80s.
 
2013-07-05 10:06:47 PM

Mugato: The only real selling point for Avatar was its "3D". I don't see how Cameron is some 3D guru. It's the same concept they had in the 50s. It's 2 2D layers. It's like a pop up book. It's a gimmick, just like it was in the 50s and the 80s.


Sash, there might still be people to call you a Luddite for mocking a fad that comes and goes all the time, and in fact predates cinema.
 
2013-07-05 10:08:20 PM

Mugato: The only real selling point for Avatar was its "3D". I don't see how Cameron is some 3D guru. It's the same concept they had in the 50s. It's 2 2D layers. It's like a pop up book. It's a gimmick, just like it was in the 50s and the 80s.


Too bad I can't see in 3D, so I was completely unimpressed with Avatar.
 
2013-07-05 10:09:54 PM

Fano: Mugato: The only real selling point for Avatar was its "3D". I don't see how Cameron is some 3D guru. It's the same concept they had in the 50s. It's 2 2D layers. It's like a pop up book. It's a gimmick, just like it was in the 50s and the 80s.

Sash, there might still be people to call you a Luddite for mocking a fad that comes and goes all the time, and in fact predates cinema.


Ah, stereopticons.
 
2013-07-05 10:15:05 PM

GreenAdder: Yeah, whatever. Just go back to reading Harlan Ellison and Phillip K. Dick novels until you "invent" your next big thing that seems suspiciously familiar, jerkface.


You know how I know you know shiat all about James Cameron?
 
2013-07-05 10:19:23 PM
Old news is old. Cameron likes 3D. So does Peter Jackson, Scorsese and alike.

He does not like retro-fit shiat like Piranha 3D or even Jurassic Park 3D, which were never made specifically for 3D exhibition.

What a craaaaazy bastard!
 
2013-07-05 10:26:03 PM
I see he's announced Avatar 2 & 3. So Avatar vs. Alien, Avatar vs. Terminator, or what?
 
2013-07-05 10:32:42 PM
He's blasting 3D conversions, not 3D filming.
 
2013-07-05 10:35:19 PM

12349876: He's blasting 3D conversions, not 3D filming.


I really don't see the difference. It's a cheesy gimmick, no matter how it's done.
 
2013-07-05 10:46:04 PM
Want a good laugh? Dig a bit online and find Kenneth Turan's review of Titanic.
 
2013-07-05 10:47:46 PM

Neums: He's not necessarily blasting them. He's blasting Hollywood for unecessarily churning out movies that don't need to be in 3D.


So, pretty much all of them then?

simplicimus:Too bad I can't see in 3D, so I was completely unimpressed with Avatar.

If it makes you feel better, you only missed out on an extra dimension of hackneyed story telling, wooden characters, and the most unoriginally named MacGuffin in the history of film.


/Unobtanium my fat ass.
//3D sucks, just make a damn decent movie and forget the stupid gimmicks.
 
2013-07-05 11:09:15 PM

Mugato: 12349876: He's blasting 3D conversions, not 3D filming.

I really don't see the difference. It's a cheesy gimmick, no matter how it's done.


That's a fine point of view to take, but there is a very different technical process in filming a movie with 3D cameras and filming a movie with 2D cameras and then converting them to a 3D format.

/never seen a feature film in 3D
//only seen one feature film in IMAX
///only rarely goes to the theater these days
 
2013-07-05 11:34:43 PM

GungFu: He does not like retro-fit shiat like Piranha 3D or even Jurassic Park 3D, which were never made specifically for 3D exhibition.

What a craaaaazy bastard!


And the Titanic 3D re-release was?

Fano: Then that cocksucker can get off his ass and make Nature Trail to Hell, thus ending the need for any more 3d movie, at least until they make Nature Trail to Hell part 2.


Please don't reveal the secret ending to your friends.

//You won't believe your eyes
 
2013-07-06 01:01:10 AM
this is the equivalent of saying not everyone should use Autotune cuz it ruins the integrity of those who use it for artistic reasons and not covering up lousy singing-ability.

3d sucks and is mediocre at best when used with the best of intentions.
 
2013-07-06 01:25:18 AM
Prometheus looked great in 3D.
 
2013-07-06 01:34:55 AM
Man of Steel and Iron Man 3 didn't 'need' 3D, according to him.  How is that determined?

I have no idea what movie would Need it them.
 
2013-07-06 01:52:21 AM
funny the article would mention J.J. abrams and star trek's 3D... it wasnt great, but it was the best 3D ive seen this popcorn season.


/when given the choice, always picks 3D
//one of the weirdos who still enjoys it.
 
2013-07-06 04:05:49 AM
Shouldn't this overrated douche be filming ANOTHER Titanic documentary?
 
2013-07-06 05:11:55 AM
James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron.

James Cameron does what James Cameron does because he IS James Cameron.
 
2013-07-06 07:47:56 AM

Mugato: The only real selling point for Avatar was its "3D". I don't see how Cameron is some 3D guru. It's the same concept they had in the 50s. It's 2 2D layers. It's like a pop up book. It's a gimmick, just like it was in the 50s and the 80s.


I'm convinced Avatar II will flop. It will take a couple of hundred million, but nowhere near what the first one did.

/The BBC have just announced they are stopping all 3D productions and projects "for the foreseeable future" because no one watched them. People don't want 3D. It was a fad.
 
2013-07-06 07:53:09 AM

Flint Ironstag: Mugato: The only real selling point for Avatar was its "3D". I don't see how Cameron is some 3D guru. It's the same concept they had in the 50s. It's 2 2D layers. It's like a pop up book. It's a gimmick, just like it was in the 50s and the 80s.

I'm convinced Avatar II will flop. It will take a couple of hundred million, but nowhere near what the first one did.

/The BBC have just announced they are stopping all 3D productions and projects "for the foreseeable future" because no one watched them. People don't want 3D. It was a fad.


I usually catch the 3D version, early on Friday mornings because I work nights.  But I'll admit, even on opening day of major movies, it's sometimes 10-20 people in the theater, at 10 am.
 
2013-07-06 08:48:39 AM

Alphax: Man of Steel and Iron Man 3 didn't 'need' 3D, according to him. How is that determined?


I'd guess it's determined by "Does James Cameron get a check?"
 
2013-07-06 09:36:41 AM
I guess 3D is okay for comic book movies, but since I'm kinda past that, whatever.
 
2013-07-06 10:00:47 AM

12349876: Mugato: 12349876: He's blasting 3D conversions, not 3D filming.

I really don't see the difference. It's a cheesy gimmick, no matter how it's done.

That's a fine point of view to take, but there is a very different technical process in filming a movie with 3D cameras and filming a movie with 2D cameras and then converting them to a 3D format.


I understand , they use two cameras and it's a more intricate process that converting a 2D movie to 3D. But it's the same end result.
 
2013-07-06 01:31:15 PM

Mugato: 12349876: He's blasting 3D conversions, not 3D filming.

I really don't see the difference. It's a cheesy gimmick, no matter how it's done.


what I don't get is, nobody seems to like it on Fark (which I, for some certainly misguided reason consider representative of a wide range of people - there must be some general average on here, right?).  I know nobody in the real world who likes 3D. You couldn't pay me to watch one, I'd have an instant migraine, why would I pay for something I get for free too frequently to begin with?  So who is watching these 3D movies, and why do they keep making enough money that people keep making them?
 
2013-07-06 01:34:59 PM
The guy's an asshole, but he's right.

There's a mountain of difference between a film that includes 3D as a part of its technical foundation and one that gets retroactively formatted into 3D because some Hollywood bureaucrat ran the ROI numbers in Excel.

Avatar is still the finest use of the medium yet from a technical standpoint.
 
2013-07-06 02:58:29 PM

serpent_sky: Mugato: 12349876: He's blasting 3D conversions, not 3D filming.

I really don't see the difference. It's a cheesy gimmick, no matter how it's done.

what I don't get is, nobody seems to like it on Fark (which I, for some certainly misguided reason consider representative of a wide range of people - there must be some general average on here, right?).  I know nobody in the real world who likes 3D. You couldn't pay me to watch one, I'd have an instant migraine, why would I pay for something I get for free too frequently to begin with?  So who is watching these 3D movies, and why do they keep making enough money that people keep making them?


Maybe guys on dates don't want to appear cheap?
 
2013-07-06 03:27:18 PM

GungFu: You know how I know you know shiat all about James Cameron?


You're right. I neglected to mention he also cribbed heavily from William Gibson.
 
2013-07-06 04:47:25 PM

serpent_sky: Mugato: 12349876: He's blasting 3D conversions, not 3D filming.

I really don't see the difference. It's a cheesy gimmick, no matter how it's done.

what I don't get is, nobody seems to like it on Fark (which I, for some certainly misguided reason consider representative of a wide range of people - there must be some general average on here, right?).  I know nobody in the real world who likes 3D. You couldn't pay me to watch one, I'd have an instant migraine, why would I pay for something I get for free too frequently to begin with?  So who is watching these 3D movies, and why do they keep making enough money that people keep making them?


Eh, when Avatar was big, there were a lot of posters calling the 3D haters Luddites for not being amazed at the "wave of the future." That we just didn't understand how awesome 3D was going to be, how we would watch Genghis Khan, go where he went, pillage what he pillaged, and defile what he defiled. Mostly it was about defiling your pocketbook. If only they would remake Casablanca, in 3d
 
2013-07-06 05:11:58 PM
If you can't tell the difference between real 3-D cameras and post-production, your eyeballs are probably too crappy for 1080p TV. You should save your money, and spend it at your optometrist/ophthalmologist.

/and Jimmy remade Titantic 3-D in post-production, so he should know about how cynical producers and directors can get
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report