James Cameron Rips Into Piranha 3D

[Lem0nade Inlay]

All I have to say is,

Shut the hell up James Cameron!

To be honest, I'd rather sit through an hour and a half of unintentional laughter, crappy film making and excessive nudity (Piranha) than 3 hours of Pocahontas with special effects (Avatar).

I'm not trying to flame on James Cameron, that's just my opinion on the films.

[sub]I'm not saying Piranha was a good movie...[/sub]

 

[Zing]

What a load of bullshit. Renaissance era my arse. Why is James Cameron serving as the poster boy for this terribly annoying fad.

Avatar wasn't my cup of tea, I thought it was a terribly bland story with some cool effects, but honestly i thought it was BETTER when I saw it on my friends Blu-Ray than it was in 3D at the cinemas.

1080p > 3D

 

[Jaythulhu]

As a cyclops, I'd like to give two big middle fingers to the entire "3D" fad.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Um, what should you be doing with 3D then, huh, Cameron? Is that making a pretentious movie that only flails because it looks really good?

At least Piranha 3D is honest when it comes to its appeal. At least in Piranha 3D it actually amounts to something, albeit really cheap entertainment.

In other words, at least that movie is not a gaping, horrible, insultingly paper-thin pile of rubbish. I figured I shouldn't insult that other movie like that, since there are fans of it that I might genuinely upset. Let's just say I don't like it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I feel that many people are missing Cameron's point.

Is he berating Piranha for trying to be a "so-bad-it's-good" film? No. He's berating it because it is using 3D as a gimmick.

"But Hubilub" you cry out. "Aren't you one of the people who are opposed to 3D because it is a gimmick".

Yes, I am. But you see, the problem with 3D is that most people just use it to throw shit in your face (literally). It's a gimmick because so few people know what to do with it besides having objects flying into the camera, and so it is used as a gimmick to attempt to enhance a movie going experience.

Cameron is beyond that. He knows how 3D can be used properly, how it can be more than just things flying around. The problem is that I feel barely anyone understands his thought process, and the technology of 3D is going to be misused by people like those who made Piranha 3D, until it is eventually once more forgotten.

I think Cameron is very naive when he thinks that he can take 3D beyond where it always has been. True, he has an idea that might work great, but nobody is going to follow him. NOT because Hollywood doesn't consider any other method to use 3D safe, but because Hollywood is too stupid to realize that there are other methods to use 3D.

Don't believe me? Check out the different trailers for Resident Evil Apocalypse and count how many times things are thrown into the camera. Glasses, Swords, Axes, Shurikens, and I'll bet you a few slow-mo bullets will make it into the film, you just wait.

Cameron is not wrong, he's just fighting a battle he can't win.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I don't get this whole 3D hype AT ALL!

I have watched some movies in 3D, and yes it is fun to get depth in the movie but at the cost of darker images and worse image quality? And here I thought we strive for the opposite...
sure both of those should get better with time, but still;

There is the issue of focus. Not the general focus of the movie, but the focus you get from a camera.
In a 2D film some parts of the movie is blurred, due to both effect and how a camera works. This is all well and good in 2D and actually helps to create depth.
But the same doesn't hold true for 3D, in a 3D movie having the foreground blurred out just ands strain to the eyes.

Your eyes and a camera doesn't work in the same way, and I personally keep finding myself trying to focus on objects that are not in focus... leaving me with the well know eye strain and headache you get from a full 3D feature...

All in all I am against 3D, and I hope its only going to be a small hype like the 70s one...

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

I feel that many people are missing Cameron's point.

Is he berating Piranha for trying to be a "so-bad-it's-good" film? No. He's berating it because it is using 3D as a gimmick.

"But Hubilub" you cry out. "Aren't you one of the people who are opposed to 3D because it is a gimmick".

Yes, I am. But you see, the problem with 3D is that most people just use it to throw shit in your face (literally). It's a gimmick because so few people know what to do with it besides having objects flying into the camera, and so it is used as a gimmick to attempt to enhance a movie going experience.

Cameron is beyond that. He knows how 3D can be used properly, how it can be more than just things flying around. The problem is that I feel barely anyone understands his thought process, and the technology of 3D is going to be misused by people like those who made Piranha 3D, until it is eventually once more forgotten.

I think Cameron is very naive when he thinks that he can take 3D beyond where it always has been. True, he has an idea that might work great, but nobody is going to follow him. NOT because Hollywood doesn't consider any other method to use 3D safe, but because Hollywood is to stupid to realize that there are other methods to use 3D.

Don't believe me? Check out the different trailers for Resident Evil Apocalypse and count how many times things are thrown into the camera. Glasses, Swords, Axes, Shurikens, and I'll bet you a few slow-mo bullets will make it into the film, you just wait.

Cameron is not wrong, he's just fighting a battle he can't win.

Are you serious? Cameron is beyond that? The first thirty minutes of the movie reveled in every occasion to show off their 3D technology. Hell, the fucking 20th Century Fox logo was in 3D.

Yes, the 3D in the movie wasn't really that gimmicky and he didn't throw stuff at the screen, but that changes nothing because if 3D isn't gimmicky, it's barely noticeable and not really worth it. Yes, Afterlife looks much, much worse, but did the 3D in Avatar really add anything to the movie... I've seen it in 3D, it didn't look much better and the pretty pictures didn't take away the thought that I essentially was watching an empty, stupid movie. Hell, I'll go see it a second time just because I promised one Irish guy, but I doubt it'll change my mind.

But back to 3D... Cameron is not fighting any kind of fight. He just used a somewhat attractive gimmick, marketed right and got it to sell his below average, I-can't-believe-that-guy-did-Aliens-and-T2 movie.

 

[nicholaxxx]

Piranha took less than a year to come out

Avatar took a god-damned decade

guess which one won't be taking full advantage of 3D?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I feel that many people are missing Cameron's point.

Is he berating Piranha for trying to be a "so-bad-it's-good" film? No. He's berating it because it is using 3D as a gimmick.

"But Hubilub" you cry out. "Aren't you one of the people who are opposed to 3D because it is a gimmick".

Yes, I am. But you see, the problem with 3D is that most people just use it to throw shit in your face (literally). It's a gimmick because so few people know what to do with it besides having objects flying into the camera, and so it is used as a gimmick to attempt to enhance a movie going experience.

Cameron is beyond that. He knows how 3D can be used properly, how it can be more than just things flying around. The problem is that I feel barely anyone understands his thought process, and the technology of 3D is going to be misused by people like those who made Piranha 3D, until it is eventually once more forgotten.

I think Cameron is very naive when he thinks that he can take 3D beyond where it always has been. True, he has an idea that might work great, but nobody is going to follow him. NOT because Hollywood doesn't consider any other method to use 3D safe, but because Hollywood is to stupid to realize that there are other methods to use 3D.

Don't believe me? Check out the different trailers for Resident Evil Apocalypse and count how many times things are thrown into the camera. Glasses, Swords, Axes, Shurikens, and I'll bet you a few slow-mo bullets will make it into the film, you just wait.

Cameron is not wrong, he's just fighting a battle he can't win.

Are you serious? Cameron is beyond that? The first thirty minutes of the movie reveled in every occasion to show off their 3D technology. Hell, the fucking 20th Century Fox logo was in 3D.

Yes, the 3D in the movie wasn't really that gimmicky and he didn't throw stuff at the screen, but that changes nothing because if 3D isn't gimmicky, it's barely noticeable and not really worth it. Yes, Afterlife looks much, much worse, but did the 3D in Avatar really add anything to the movie... I've seen it in 3D, it didn't look much better and the pretty pictures didn't take away the thought that I essentially was watching an empty, stupid movie. Hell, I'll go see it a second time just because I promised one Irish guy, but I doubt it'll change my mind.

But back to 3D... Cameron is not fighting any kind of fight. He just used a somewhat attractive gimmick, marketed right and got it to sell his below average, I-can't-believe-that-guy-did-Aliens-and-T2 movie.

Yeah, I am serious. I believe Cameron is beyond the norm when it comes to making films in 3D.

3D has always worked the same way: From time to time, have shit fly toward the camera to startle the audience. Cameron is taking it somewhere else. He's trying to make the entire screen come alive. If it's working or not is debatable, but his intentions are clear, and he's doing something with the concept that might actually work.

 

[Balgus]

lol blood from a turnip. in other news it's a non-serious film anyone who thinks otherwise doubtfully knows about the term "B movie" or is James Cameron. (come on he's made like 2 billion from avatar we can't really complain about his tastes)

 

[ohgodalex]

Avatar sucked. Cameron needs to stop being such a pretentious ***** and realize that he added 3D to Pocahontas.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

So we're going through a reinassance right now because we're using a cheap marketing gimmick from the 70s and 80s and heck, they even had 3-D in the 60s if I recall correctly.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Yeah, I am serious. I believe Cameron is beyond the norm when it comes to making films in 3D.

3D has always worked the same way: From time to time, have shit fly toward the camera to startle the audience. Cameron is taking it somewhere else. He's trying to make the entire screen come alive. If it's working or not is debatable, but his intentions are clear, and he's doing something with the concept that might actually work.

The problem is (and I can't forgive Cameron for this one) - the fact that Cameron pushes technology forward is admirable, but I'd really rather his movie didn't succeed, because it sets a standard for gimmicks and bad storytelling.

Alright, maybe not all he's doing is a blatant, shameless cash-in and maybe there are some good intentions, but it makes me feel nauseating when I see a guy criticizing movies for exploiting the 3D for cheap gimmicks, when he himself is on the verge or re-releasing his movie with little new content.

Also, Avatar in 3D - not that impressive, at least for me. I'd really rather he had stuff flying at the screen, at least that would've had me momentarily entertained.

 

[Dandymanx]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082910/

Best not to rip into trashy 80's horror movies Jimbo when you were responsible for this mess

 

[superbatranger]

I've never even seen a film in 3D.

Neither have I, except for those 3D rides they have at places like Disney World and Universal Studios.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah, I am serious. I believe Cameron is beyond the norm when it comes to making films in 3D.

3D has always worked the same way: From time to time, have shit fly toward the camera to startle the audience. Cameron is taking it somewhere else. He's trying to make the entire screen come alive. If it's working or not is debatable, but his intentions are clear, and he's doing something with the concept that might actually work.

The problem is (and I can't forgive Cameron for this one) - the fact that Cameron pushes technology forward is admirable, but I'd really rather his movie didn't succeed, because it sets a standard for gimmicks and bad storytelling.

Alright, maybe not all he's doing is a blatant, shameless cash-in and maybe there are some good intentions, but it makes me feel nauseating when I see a guy criticizing movies for exploiting the 3D for cheap gimmicks, when he himself is on the verge or re-releasing his movie with little new content.

Also, Avatar in 3D - not that impressive, at least for me. I'd really rather he had stuff flying at the screen, at least that would've had me momentarily entertained.

I agree that he's a twat for re-releasing avatar, and that avatar is a rather crappy film, and had Cameron complained about Piranha simply sucking instead of exclusively commenting on the 3D, I would've been pissed at him too. Right now I'm a little more forgiving simply because he's the only person in Hollywood who is opposed of the way we use 3D while still wanting it to be good.

If we see an article next week were Cameron criticizes a films storytelling however, you can believe I will be all over that *****. And not in the good way.

 

[Dys]

Yeah, I hate it when movies sell on gimmicks or pretty graphics when their story is bland and generic...after avatar I'm very surprised that Cameron would share my view...

 

[Asehujiko]

You know what would elevate 3D movies to works of art? Make a movie that uses the 3D effects to mess with your head. Say it uses optical illusions created with 3D to enhance a horror or suspense movie, or to create some good WTF moments in a bizarre or otherworldly movie. I'll bet a movie like INCEPTION could have had some fun with strange 3D effects, with the paradoxical architecture and whatnot.

You mean like the paradox staircase scene in Inception? That would be cool indeed.

 

[pigmypython]

Apparently the film is a lot of fun, (I will hold my final judgment until i see it)but does the 3D add a lot? Probably not enough for an extra 5 dollars...I however don't think it puts the evolution into reverse gear...

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Cameron also needs to realise that in the vast majority of cases 'biggest and best movies' are actually two lists, not one.