AfterDawn: Tech news

James Cameron: Hollywood is forcing 3D on filmmakers for higher profits, not to make movies better

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 09 Jul 2013 9:41 User comments (17)

James Cameron: Hollywood is forcing 3D on filmmakers for higher profits, not to make movies better Mr. billion dollar movie, James Cameron, who helped make 3D mainstream again with his hit 'Avatar,' says Hollywood is forcing the tech on filmmakers not to enhance movies but just to maximize profits.
While Cameron says he hoped Avatar would "get as many people shooting in 3D as possible," 3D production has now "become a studio-driven top down process to make money." Additionally, Cameron adds that directors may not even have any say as 3D elements are added in post-production.

When asked for examples, Cameron cited two new hits, Man of Steel and Iron Man 3, as movies that did not really need 3D. "If you spend $150 million on visual effects, the film is already going to be spectacular [and] perfect," he added.

Cameron will use 3D for his upcoming Avatar sequels and likely for his next project, Battle Angel, based on the popular graphic novels.

Previous Next  

17 user comments

19.7.2013 10:34

And in other news, water is wet!

29.7.2013 11:14

Yeah, this is the same thing 3D has always faced. There are lot of movies that have come out over the past decade or so that didn't need to be in 3D but the studios know they can charge more for the 3D tickets.


But until the can get rid of the gimmicky sometimes nausea-inducing feelings it'll never catch on.

39.7.2013 11:20

My experiences with 3D so far are such that in the future I'll only go see movies in 3D if it's significantly cheaper than 2D. I have no great desire to pay extra for a worse experience.

49.7.2013 15:06

Yeah 3d seems superfluous in almost every case to me. If given the option I will go 2d every time. I have seen quite a few 3d movies and have yet to see one where 3d was a plus...Other than to the price of the ticket.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 09 Jul 2013 @ 15:08

Just my $0.02,

dEwMe

511.7.2013 7:01

I am one of those that absolutely love 3D in the theter and at home. There obviously are many who love this technology otherwise it already would of crashed and burned. I think the whole watching regular tv and sports in 3D is where they failed. I think animation especially looks amazing in 3D, but at the same time i know others who hate it with a passion, so i guess it is a matter of taste.

611.7.2013 7:37

3D certainly does not add to the pleasure of watching a movie if you only have one eye and there are times when the picture looks blurry as you sometimes see thru to the second image. Since most of the glasses they use for 3D movies have two different lenses, it's obvious you cannot put the two together with only one eye. Hollywood doesn't care, I'm sure since we one-eyed people are in the minority

711.7.2013 18:14

Originally posted by raunchynm:
3D certainly does not add to the pleasure of watching a movie if you only have one eye and there are times when the picture looks blurry as you sometimes see thru to the second image. Since most of the glasses they use for 3D movies have two different lenses, it's obvious you cannot put the two together with only one eye. Hollywood doesn't care, I'm sure since we one-eyed people are in the minority
NO 3D for you!

811.7.2013 19:51

1D?

913.7.2013 7:59

The last 3-D movie I saw was STARCHASER: THE LEGEND OF ORIN in 1985. I refuse to be enticed by a gimmick nowadays, and am more than happy to see it fail (until they come up w/ a glasses-free legit way of doing it).

1013.7.2013 10:53

First - 3D movies are difficult to watch. The effect and glasses hurt my eyes. NOT fun. I am sure I am not the only one to experience this.

Second - Every time you go to see a 3D movie they want you to buy the glasses, AGAIN. Already have a pair or two (tried to see if the sick effect was one time only - it was not) and do NOT need to buy more.

Then they want you to turn the glasses in?? Come on. How much $$$ do plan on squeezing out of us???

1114.7.2013 4:06

Wow. Too many comments to copypasta here. But let me weigh in on the 3D bandwagon.

1) It does suck. I wear glasses so the idea of paying 3-4 extra dollars to wear glasses OVER my prescription glasses is not a good time.

2) I will gladly plan my movie viewing schedule around a 2D screening of the film, even if I have to take a day off of work.

3) They are absolutely getting out of control with this whole '3D' nonsense. <movie trailer voice> Coming soon, to a theatre near you...Nicolas Cage in 'National Treasure 3D: The Hunt For A Third Dimension' </movie trailer voice>

4)


Someone told me once that theres a right and wrong, and that punishment would come to those
who dare to cross the line.
But it must not be true for jerk-offs like you.
Maybe it takes longer to catch a total asshole.

1215.7.2013 15:52

I've had enough of 3D, only some movies are good on my 3D TV. I just saw Pacific Rim last night, it was a really cool movie, but I want to see it again, because 3D completely ruined it. Half the time watching it my eyes had to keep refocusing just to tell what the hell was going on, especially when it's fast paced and close up. The only time 3D looks good is when the picture is still and zoomed-out, AND I had to pay more just to see it in Real3D. Never again will I pay for a 3D movie, IMAX only movies are the only ones who seem to get it right, it works for those type of movies, not action.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Jul 2013 @ 15:56


1316.7.2013 14:41

Originally posted by mike.m:
I've had enough of 3D, only some movies are good on my 3D TV. I just saw Pacific Rim last night, it was a really cool movie, but I want to see it again, because 3D completely ruined it. Half the time watching it my eyes had to keep refocusing just to tell what the hell was going on, especially when it's fast paced and close up. The only time 3D looks good is when the picture is still and zoomed-out, AND I had to pay more just to see it in Real3D. Never again will I pay for a 3D movie, IMAX only movies are the only ones who seem to get it right, it works for those type of movies, not action.
I agree with the IMAX stuff they do the job on my TV, I watched Hansel and Gretal witch hunters 3d the other night and for an action movie that worked well

1417.7.2013 1:16

Originally posted by mlvc6969:
I am one of those that absolutely love 3D in the theter and at home. There obviously are many who love this technology otherwise it already would of crashed and burned. I think the whole watching regular tv and sports in 3D is where they failed. I think animation especially looks amazing in 3D, but at the same time i know others who hate it with a passion, so i guess it is a matter of taste.

+1 despite its limitations, i cannot deny either that i like 3D movies/animations/documentaries too much.

ASUS G73JW | Intel Core i7-740QM, 1.73GHz | 8GB DDR3 | Nvidia GeForce GTX 460M, 1.5GB | OCZ 120GB SSD + Seagate 500GB Hybrid 7200rpm | 17.3" FHD/3D | Blu-ray Write | Win7Pro64

1517.7.2013 1:51

The only time 3d has worked for me was Jackson's The Hobbit because it was double the frame rate (48fps) and brighter.

The other instance where 3d worked, I hear, was with Life Of Pi because of the nature of it's filming.... simpler scenes with lengthy slow-moving shots giving one time to focus and take it in.



-------------------------------------------------------------------

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 Jul 2013 @ 1:54

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

1617.7.2013 13:34

At the root of all of this it is simple.
3D is no substitute for great scripts, acting & direction.
In fact it can be an unnecessary distraction.

Personally I usually go & see a well reviewed film in 3D in 2D as well. Often it turns out to be a waste of money cos Hollywood just can't help itself using 3D as another gimmick and substitute for a great story well told.

I have no interest in 3D at home.
I currently have a decent recent 50" plasma and might (but I am not yet convinced) go for a max size of 65" (OLED) next in my living room....but that would be really pushing it.
I'm far more interested in the TV producers giving me a very high quality 2D screen.

But I guess it takes all sorts.

1717.7.2013 13:48

I have a 50" plasma... I love it.

As far as OLED goes we might be waiting a few more years for them to get reasonable pricewise.

It does astound me how the default settings on TVs are terrible. And more so, how terrible people are at adjusting settings if they do make the effort. Often the results are garish. As you said, 'it takes all sorts'.


Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive