Monday
Aug162010
Monday, August 16, 2010 at 11:46AM James Cameron on 'The Hobbit' and 3-D 'Hurt Locker'
I'm not sure James Cameron is taking credit for it, but he tells The Herald Sun that he had been talking to Guillermo del Toro about leaving The Hobbit, which is exactly what eventually happened.
"I was telling him for a long time to get out of that thing because there is only room for one captain on the ship. Instinctively I knew that Peter was going to take over and do the movie. Guillermo, to his credit, didn't listen to me and wanted to continue and had some great designs - and I have seen all the designs. Of course he would have done a spectacular job, but don't we want to see Peter do it? He should do it and Guillermo should do his thing. That's what I told both of them - you should just stay in your corners."I tend to agree with him; del Toro would have been constantly and perpetually compared to his own producer and co-writer, no matter how good The Hobbit would have turned out to be under his stewardship. Of course, if you look at what Jackson's done since Lord of the Rings, he needs the return to Middle Earth as much as it needs him. In other King of the World news, he was asked by Entertainment Weekly (via The Playlist) about The Hurt Locker's Oscar win. For the first time, exes were nominated for Best Picture and Best Director, and she (Kathryn Bigelow) won them both. "It was David and Goliath. Goliath had made more than a couple of billion dollars and The Hurt Locker had made about what it cost to shoot, about $15 million. The Academy always likes to be the great equalizer. But I don't begrude her any of that. I couldn't think of a better outcome for our lives. I got my Oscar. She got her Oscar." Well, gee, that's nice of him to overlook the cruel Academy like that (insert eye roll here). But he's not done talking about The Hurt Locker. Cameron also says it would be a better film in 3-D. "Absolutely. It wouldn't have been hugely better in 3-D, Cameron asserts, "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." So really what he's saying is everything would be better in 3-D, because when it's the standard it'll be a better experience for everyone. Then again, would Schindler's List be better in color? There are lots of crayons in the box, and while Hurt Locker probably wouldn't be devalued in 3-D, is it good for everything? Paranormal Activity, for example, is about a lo-fi experience and I think that would be totally ruined by 3-D. Oh, and it's Cameron's birthday today. He's 56. I hope he's saved up for his retirement.
Reader Comments (12)
3D will never reach a point where you don't need it on the poster. Sorry Mr. Cameron, but 3D is not here to stay, in fact, it is already on its way out. The same thing happened in the 50's and then it boiled over, it will never become as accepted as "color"
I wouldn't say that "3D will never reach [the color point]" because there are a lot of companies that seems to take a very serious look into 3D. Look at Pixar/Disney. Pixar's last two films were in 3D and Disney is going to keep up with this 3D thing. Even the next Spiderman may possibly be in 3D, with it being filmed in 3D instead of the conversion. I'm not saying that 3D is here to stay, but it's definately being looked at from a number of studios. Who knows, maybe one day, a serious 3D film would be made.
Valid points "This Way", and I understand that as of now 3D is what the studios want. Everybody saw how much of a cash cow Avatar was, and because Avatar was such an event picture, they want their tentpoles to be the same way, and so as a result, numerous big budget films are being released in 3D. But, the numbers are already showing that the audiences are wary of this new technology, and the craze is dying out. It will be around for another couple years, but look at the numbers, and they're already starting to wane for 3D. It will be very interesting to see the next few years, when the audiences, who are tired of 3D, are forced to stand up to the studios, who only see it as a more expensive ticket. I encourage anyone who is reading this, join me in my boycott of films in 3D. Don't get me wrong, I still saw Toy Story 3 and others, but you won't catch me wearing those glasses ever again, and I know I am not the only one.
Animation has yet to prove it's tangibly better in 3-D. Only a couple live-action movies can even say that. There's a long, long way to go, and audiences are already growing resistant to its use as a money trap:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/technology/3D_technology_dying.fortune/index.htm
I'm not saying that 3D will be the future for film, but that it's taken into consideration. Although considering the article, I agree with Colin that 3D still has a long way.
Cine-rama was a specially set-up gimmick when it came out in the 50's, but in time widescreen became standardized and now even all our TVs are widescreen. Sound used to be mono, now it surrounds you. 3D WILL evolve. You may not be watchin' it wearin' glasses in 30 years. Maybe 3D will be like it is in "Minority Report". But movies WILL NOT stay the way they have been for the last hundred years simply because they're not film any more, they're digital, and they'll advance by Moore's law like everything else in that realm. 3D really is just a facet of movie's - now - digital characteristic.
to J. Bradley:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinerama
I politely find your cinerama argument void. I have never seen such a thing in my life. There is another example of a gimmick that didn't catch on in the long run. Widescreen televisions were introduced to make it so that television would fit the 16:9 film format, and make showing movies on home TV's much easier.
to Colin:
I love that article and cite it when I talk about 3D. Thank you for showing it again.
to everyone else:
I can find you more articles too if you wish, but I don't want somebody else speak my argument. 3D is not here to stay because it doesn't have the capabilities that lasting technologies such as color and sound had. You wanna see 3D's capabilities: we all saw them in Avatar. Cool. But were "Alice in Wonderland", "Clash of the Titans", "Shrek Forever After", "Toy Story 3", "The Last Airbender", "Cats and Dogs 2", "Step Up 3", or any of the other 3D films (good OR bad) enhanced and improved by 3D?? Not in the slightest.
And people realize that. People finally are seeing that all 3D is doing is robbing them of 3 extra dollars, more in other cases. And what do people do when they realize this? They STOP seeing 3D movies. Just ask all of the fans at Comic-Con, who applauded Jon Favreau when he announced his next film would NOT be in 3D.
And what does the studio do when they're films in 3D stop doing as well? (just wait until next year starting with Tron Legacy and other future 3D catastrophes) They will lose interest, pack their things, and move on to something else.
J Bradley is right on!! It may be a gimmick to you all now but its already begun. Now Video games have begun using 3D without the glasses. Whether you lke it or not you will not have a choice in 5-10 years. Its like DVD when it came out. At first everyone was skeptical at how it made our home viewing any better and then it just didn't matter. VHS was gone and DVD had become the cheap product to buy and it was worth it. Everyone said HD televisions were a joke just over 5 years ago. I remember seeing the first plasma TV's in a local Radio Shack that were overpriced going for almost $7,000. Everyone laughed and guess what? I have 2 HDTV's and am ready for a new LED. You all probably laughed and picked on the 1st people using cell phones! Hey guess what...Shit Happens!. Lets just go with it like we always do and start worrying about more important shit.