• James Cameron says Hollywood is abusing 3D
    73 replies, posted
[url]http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/iron-man-3-and-man-of-steel-shouldn-t-have-been-in-3d-says-cameron-080709014.html[/url] [quote]The 'Avatar' director, who was among those pioneering the resurgence in 3D technology with his 2009 film, made the comments at the TagDF technology conference in Mexico City. “I do not think Hollywood is using the 3D properly,” he said. “The reason I say that Hollywood is not doing well is because it is automatic. “For example, 'The Man of Steel,' 'Iron Man' and all those movies should not necessarily be in 3D. If you spend $150 million on visual effects, the film is already going to be spectacular, perfect.” “One thing is shooting in 3D and another to convert to 3D. After 'Avatar' changed everything, good and bad movies, everything has to be in 3D since 'Avatar.' “The problem I see now is that instead of it being a filmmaker issue is a matter of the studios to make money and are pushing 3D to directors who are not comfortable or do not like 3D.”[/quote]
Before someone tries to make some witty remark about Cameron using 3D himself, all the 3D in Avatar was masterfully done, and really only used for depth of field enhancement.
I dont like 3d movies its a stupid gimmick
I've never enjoyed 3d in a movie. It's a gimmick and I only see it when I have to. 3/4 time it hurts the eyes and makes things hard to focus on.
thanks for that insightful comment cameron i would have never realized
James Cameron brought 3D hoping for more engaging movies and elements, not a gimmick. Cameron knows his shit.
3D is nice when it's used sparsely and mostly for "depth" instead of "popping out." 3D usually gives me headaches, so the last 3D movie I saw was Rise of the Guardians. It was hardly noticeable, but I knew it was there because the foreground was distinct from the background and it looked really fucking nice. It's the same idea when you turn the 3D all the way up on the 3DS - it should be subtle. 3D isn't inherently bad, but it can become gimmicky very, very quickly.
[QUOTE=DiCiSpitfire;41367632]I dont like 3d movies its a stupid gimmick[/QUOTE] It's (mostly) only a gimmick in movies aimed at little kids. Generally, if something flies out of the screen at you, it's shit. Otherwise, 3D is mostly used for depth of field enhancement, and has no reason to be bitched about.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;41367614]Before someone tries to make some witty remark about Cameron using 3D himself, all the 3D in Avatar was masterfully done, and really only used for depth of field enhancement.[/QUOTE] I'm ok with movies using it for DOF, but when you throw shit on screen just for the OOOH AHHH effect, it's cheesy. I saw World War Z in 3D and it actually didn't do too bad of a job. [editline]8th July 2013[/editline] I've also seen Jackass 3D...Oh god.
I never saw avatar in 3d :(
I don't think the 'It hurts my eyes' is a valid argument. If it hurts your eyes, there are always non-3D showings.
Avatar was a great example of a 3D movie done correctly. Now it's just a big gimmick.
[QUOTE=Del91;41367668]I'm ok with movies using it for DOF, but when you throw shit on screen just for the OOOH AHHH effect, it's cheesy. I saw World War Z in 3D and it actually didn't do too bad of a job. [editline]8th July 2013[/editline] I've also seen Jackass 3D...Oh god.[/QUOTE] Everyone complains about things jumping out at you, but really, when's the last time a good movie did that? The only movies that do that are movies meant for children. Case and point, Jackass 3D.
If Avatar didn't have all those special effects, it would have been forgotten.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;41367713]If Avatar didn't have all those special effects, it would have been forgotten.[/QUOTE] What's your point? That Cameron used special effects to make people enjoy a movie? Damn what a cunt everyone grab your pitchforks
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;41367713]If Avatar didn't have all those special effects, it would have been forgotten.[/QUOTE] I guess you could compare it to the first Crysis being a tech demo.
Saw Man of Steel in 3D. I feel like it was meant to be viewed in 2D, as the 3D was nearly non-existant. Now Spy Kids 3D was a good 3D movie.
The HFR version of The Hobbit in 3D looked properly good.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;41367713]If Avatar didn't have all those special effects, it would have been forgotten.[/QUOTE] I for one would watch a film for its special effects as long as the plot and action isn't horrendeously bad.
Dredd in 3D was amazing almost every other film I've ever seen in 3D though was a pile of shit
Until they can solve the problem of people having to wear glasses (also the glasses make the picture much darker), I'll continue to view my movies in 2D.
[QUOTE=Rich209;41367948]Until they can solve the problem of people having to wear glasses (also the glasses make the picture much darker), I'll continue to view my movies in 2D.[/QUOTE] It seems like they're very close to it. There's already advertisements that are in 3D without glasses. I've just never seen it done on a movie screen size scale before.
I remember watching The Last Airbender in 3D with my cousin... It wasn't worth it, barring the fact that the movie was shit. The 3D wasn't even noticable. It was pretty obvious the movie was meant for 2D.
[QUOTE=darkzero226;41368033]I remember watching The Last Airbender in 3D with my cousin... It wasn't worth it, barring the fact that the movie was shit. The 3D wasn't even noticable. It was pretty obvious the movie was meant for 2D.[/QUOTE] It was pretty obvious that movie wasn't meant to be released... ever.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;41367614]Before someone tries to make some witty remark about Cameron using 3D himself, all the 3D in Avatar was masterfully done, and really only used for depth of field enhancement.[/QUOTE] what about Titanic 3D
James Cameron takes 3Ds to his face every night.
[QUOTE=DiCiSpitfire;41367632]I dont like 3d movies its a stupid gimmick[/QUOTE] Exactly this its not even 3D unless its a [B]HOLODECK [/B]because that's exactly what "3D" is. You know, three dimensions. Not pseudo 3d through gimmicky glasses [t]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw2nxvpKEo1r88o7po1_500.jpg[/t] I don't care if they further the technology or not really. It's a giant gimmick all the way. Unless its a holodeck, its not "3D", thats a lie. Avatar, despite having no real plot, is the exception.
Says the guy who re-released Ti....oh wait, he's actually right. EDIT: Yeah, at some point in the movie you kinda forget/assimilate the fact you're watching that in 3D. I went to see World War Z and the first 20 minutes I was like "Whoaaa check it out men" then after they escape the city I kinda...you know, forgot I was watching it in 3D/Didn't notice the effects.
I watched Titanic 3D in the theatre. It made me die inside with how pointless the 3D was, Mr Cameron go dig a hole and play back Terminator 2 repeatedly until you realise you're not a pillock.
[QUOTE=AK'z;41369279]what about Titanic 3D[/QUOTE] For being post-converted to 3D, it was damn good. It's nowhere near as good as Avatar's implementation, but still one of the better attempts I've seen in no small part due to its subtlety.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.