Assassin Xaero said:I haven't seen Piranha 3D, but I have to disagree.
OT: Screw James Cameron and screw James Cameron's massively-inflated ego.
James Cameron Rips Into Piranha 3D
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: Screw James Cameron and screw James Cameron's massively-inflated ego.
3D is just a gimmick, it will go away soon. As for Piranha 3D, well I couldnt agree with James Cameron more, it is truly an example of what should not be done with 3D technology.
If you want to see his writing at it's "best" find his Spider-Man script somewhere. Dear God, it wouldn't have just set comic book movies back 30 years it would've set the written word back 30 centuries if widely distributed.Arawn.Chernobog said:
I think I've liked a total of two of his movies and both of those were because Linda Hamilton was hot.
XD One great reviewer I watch known as "The Cinema Snob" Said in his review of Piranha 3D that he said that that movie is what 3D is meant for. He said that big blockbusters and kids films aren't supposed to be in such a gimic like 3D. It's supposed to be used for really bad and cheesy horror films like the ones in the olden days.
So what James Cameron is saying is total BS.
Besides, 3D is over rated and my dad can't see it anyways.
So what James Cameron is saying is total BS.
Besides, 3D is over rated and my dad can't see it anyways.
James Cameron is a confusing being. On the one hand are Terminator and Aliens. Easily among my favourite films. On the other is everything after Terminator and Aliens.
I heard him say in an interview he and his crew spent two years drawing up and designing Pandora and its creatures. I can't see how it could have taken them so long when it consists of neon plants and two extra limbs for every creature but the Na'vi. Avatar is one of the least imaginative films I've seen in recent memory.
I heard him say in an interview he and his crew spent two years drawing up and designing Pandora and its creatures. I can't see how it could have taken them so long when it consists of neon plants and two extra limbs for every creature but the Na'vi. Avatar is one of the least imaginative films I've seen in recent memory.
I really do hope all of 3D this and 3D that gets scrapped down the line somewhere. I'm not one of those people that can't see 3D but honestly what is there to see in a 3D? With 3D comes those goofy glasses, which I have to wear on top of my normal glasses for a full length film which costs more due to 3D'ness. And all of that comes to maybe 1-2 scenes where an object/person sort of slightly in front of another object/person.
In my opinion 3D is a waste of time. It might just be my grumpy inner 56 year old talking but I actually prefer 2D and I know that 2D works so maybe we should just stick with it.
In my opinion 3D is a waste of time. It might just be my grumpy inner 56 year old talking but I actually prefer 2D and I know that 2D works so maybe we should just stick with it.
Well there's your problem; "hastily converted to 3D". Not filmed in 3D, converted to. And haphazardly, no less.
You know, I think I've found Mr. Cameron's problem with Jaws. Yahtzee said it pretty well; "Intentionally annoying is still annoying." In this case, intentionally bad is still bad. Making a parody callback to the bad movies of the 70s and 80s produces a bad movie.
I don't defend either side of this debate(if there is one), but there are two sides.
Also, how and why was the OP posted in 1969? I lul'd, so I was just wondering.
You know, I think I've found Mr. Cameron's problem with Jaws. Yahtzee said it pretty well; "Intentionally annoying is still annoying." In this case, intentionally bad is still bad. Making a parody callback to the bad movies of the 70s and 80s produces a bad movie.
I don't defend either side of this debate(if there is one), but there are two sides.
Also, how and why was the OP posted in 1969? I lul'd, so I was just wondering.
3-D is nothing but a step back for media as a whole.
Ironically, Piranha is one of the few things 3-D would be beneficiary to, bascily going "Hey look at the scary fishy! Isn't it scary? And here are some hot chick! Aren't they hot in 3-D? Dude this movie is awesome, dude! PARTY!"
Whereas Avatar was "Look at the pretty scenery. This film is the best film ever because I say so." All Avatar has to its name is a big budget, a famous director, and "Oooh, it's 3-D, something that wasn't used in decades, most likely FOR A F***ING REASON!"
(Possibly flawed/outdated film statistics ahead, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Plus, Cameron, "The biggest and best films are being made in 3-D?" Was The Dark Knight (Formally the 2nd highest grossing film until Avatar) in 3-D? Was Gone With the Wind, the film that, if adjusting for inflation, STILL IS the highest grossing film of all time, in 3-D?
Or my personal favorite...
Did you say "The biggest and best films are being made in 3-D" when Titanic, a film that YOU MADE became one of the most sucessful films ever?
[/rant]
oh, and if you think "No, 3-D is not a step back in movies!" ...
Ironically, Piranha is one of the few things 3-D would be beneficiary to, bascily going "Hey look at the scary fishy! Isn't it scary? And here are some hot chick! Aren't they hot in 3-D? Dude this movie is awesome, dude! PARTY!"
Whereas Avatar was "Look at the pretty scenery. This film is the best film ever because I say so." All Avatar has to its name is a big budget, a famous director, and "Oooh, it's 3-D, something that wasn't used in decades, most likely FOR A F***ING REASON!"
(Possibly flawed/outdated film statistics ahead, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Plus, Cameron, "The biggest and best films are being made in 3-D?" Was The Dark Knight (Formally the 2nd highest grossing film until Avatar) in 3-D? Was Gone With the Wind, the film that, if adjusting for inflation, STILL IS the highest grossing film of all time, in 3-D?
Or my personal favorite...
Did you say "The biggest and best films are being made in 3-D" when Titanic, a film that YOU MADE became one of the most sucessful films ever?
[/rant]
oh, and if you think "No, 3-D is not a step back in movies!" ...
HEY! Jackass will be interesting...I am Omega said:3-D is nothing but a step back for media as a whole.
Ironically, Piranha is one of the few things 3-D would be beneficiary to, bascily going "Hey look at the scary fishy! Isn't it scary? And here are some hot chick! Aren't they hot in 3-D? Dude this movie is awesome, dude! PARTY!"
Whereas Avatar was "Look at the pretty scenery. This film is the best film ever because I say so." All Avatar has to its name is a big budget, a famous director, and "Oooh, it's 3-D, something that wasn't used in decades, most likely FOR A F***ING REASON!"
(Possibly flawed/outdated film statistics ahead, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Plus, Cameron, "The biggest and best films are being made in 3-D?" Was The Dark Knight (Formally the 2nd highest grossing film until Avatar) in 3-D? Was Gone With the Wind, the film that, if adjusting for inflation, STILL IS the highest grossing film of all time, in 3-D?
Or my personal favorite...
Did you say "The biggest and best films are being made in 3-D" when Titanic, a film that YOU MADE became one of the most sucessful films ever?
[/rant]
oh, and if you think "No, 3-D is not a step back in movies!" ...
He seems to have a rather high opinion of 3d movies.
When I went to see Piranha, I first looked feverishly for a non-3d version so I wouldn't have to wear the stupid glasses. When no theatres were showing, I buckled and wore the glasses.
I still haven't seen Avatar.
When I went to see Piranha, I first looked feverishly for a non-3d version so I wouldn't have to wear the stupid glasses. When no theatres were showing, I buckled and wore the glasses.
I still haven't seen Avatar.
Cameron can say what he likes. I still won't be seeing his movie again in the theater. It was far, far better in 2D for me than 3D, which was lacking in impressiveness by exactly $5, the upcharge I paid to have eye strain for 2 hours.
If movies move completely to 3D, I'm afraid I won't be heading to the theaters anymore. I don't pay $15 to get a headache.
If movies move completely to 3D, I'm afraid I won't be heading to the theaters anymore. I don't pay $15 to get a headache.
3-D is a gimmick to increase the profits of the movie, they get to charge an extra 3-5 bucks for crappy glasses.
Would Godfather be any better in 3-D, or Twelve Angry Men, or Goodfellas? No. Dramas would receive no major boost from being in 3-D. There are a few genres that might benefit from from 3-D:
1) 'spectacle' movies and documentaries where the environment is just as (or more) important as the story (Lawrence of Arabia, Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Planet Earth, Blue Planet, LIFE)
2) Movies that 3-D adds to the tongue-in-cheek or nonsensical atmosphere (Piranha, Evil Dead, Army of Darkness, Zombieland)
Naturally, all of those movies are NOT in 3-D, my point is simply that they might be cool in 3-D (proactively stopped the trolls).
3-D has limited application, it is a tool that the director can use to immerse the audience in the story, it's not a renaissance in the motion picture industry.
Would Godfather be any better in 3-D, or Twelve Angry Men, or Goodfellas? No. Dramas would receive no major boost from being in 3-D. There are a few genres that might benefit from from 3-D:
1) 'spectacle' movies and documentaries where the environment is just as (or more) important as the story (Lawrence of Arabia, Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Planet Earth, Blue Planet, LIFE)
2) Movies that 3-D adds to the tongue-in-cheek or nonsensical atmosphere (Piranha, Evil Dead, Army of Darkness, Zombieland)
Naturally, all of those movies are NOT in 3-D, my point is simply that they might be cool in 3-D (proactively stopped the trolls).
3-D has limited application, it is a tool that the director can use to immerse the audience in the story, it's not a renaissance in the motion picture industry.
I admit I may be wrong about Jackass 3D. I liked the first two. It's the "3D" aspect I'm worried about. How can you possibly film a film like Jackass in 3D? It's like a lot of other low-quality 3D films; some moments will just have the "obligatory moment to show off the 3D regardless of how out of place it is." That being said, this could be like Piranha; actually using 3D in a way that makes the movie a little better.crimson5pheonix said:
Piranha in 3D is fine. After all Cameron's second directed film was Piranha 2. The whole point of 3D is to have things jump out at you, Piranha seem to be perfect for jumping out at audiences.
Cameron is full of himself and he hasn't made a good movie since the Abyss.
Cameron is full of himself and he hasn't made a good movie since the Abyss.
I don't know. They already have several scenes in the other movies that would work with it. Like when they stand on a ... half pipe(?) with a lexan barrier in front of the camera and they ride down into the lexan. And whenever they do anything that launches them, it might be fun to have depth of field.I am Omega said:
Hey Cameron, what does your colon look like? Since you've got your head shoved up your own ass and all.
I don't see how 3D magically makes a film better. Avatar's story was a well-trodden one, the film was average at best. Making it so thing stand out more is not going to change that
I don't see how 3D magically makes a film better. Avatar's story was a well-trodden one, the film was average at best. Making it so thing stand out more is not going to change that
