cameron could have just kept it at too many films take 3d now takes and tack it on as a gimmick, hell he could have said i take mediocre stores retell them in my movies and spend a billion dollars on fx and camera angles making it look great and i got an academy award for one of em. but when he mentioned a just released movie by name well you got to expect that someone might get upset, this is not some random person on a message board taking a shot at his movie or even a critic, this is a guy in hollywood that has a ton of clout and can turn shit into gold and make a truck full of money doing it.
Piranha 3D Exec Snaps Back at James Cameron
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've thought Cameron to be an overrated asshole long before he made Avatar.
This only proves my suspicions were well-placed.
This only proves my suspicions were well-placed.
one of the posters it had a womans ass underwater in a tight red bikini, wasnt til ten minutes of looking at the poster i went "SHIT THERE ARE PIRANHA THERE!" 
Have you tried watching it in 2D? The 3D experience I find it makes the movie all the more immersive. The point of it is to be subtle, not your cheezy pop out 3D action/horror movies of old.Sean Strife said:
I'm not sure if Cameron's criticism is very well founded. I really hate monster movies and genre films in general (with a fucking passion,) and don't understand why or think that anyone should be watching them. But that cheezy 3D thing seems fairly built into the monster movie formula. I'd be all for it if he criticized the practice as a whole, but he seemed to be criticizing the movie itself, when the movie is just a "victim" of this expectation. It seemed a lot more like James Cameron was just getting annoyed that anyone else used 3D.
But really, these kind of movies should never be made. If you have people lining up to waste their time, you might as well do it well.
The story's still been used alot. Guy goes in undercover to kill something else, tends to be a group of people, learns more about the group, learns to care about them, then fights back against Group A trying to take out Group B that he belongs to now. All Cameron did was add blue people, aliens, and some futuristic tech. Atleast, that's my personal feel on the matter. He didn't invent 3D, he just struck dumb luck with it. 3D isn't all that fancy.Tiamat666 said:
Now call me when they have like VR goggles that litteraly put you in the movie in every sense of the word.
This guy just earned himself another 10$ from movie ticket sales. Honestly I never had any interest in seeing this movie, nor would I if I did not just read this article. The guys got balls of steel to stick up for himself against Cameron, and Cameron does indeed need to get knocked down a peg (not saying that because I hated Avatar but simply because its obvious his ego makes up 99.9% of his being now) This guy is my new hero...
He can express his opinion, and sure I groan over these types of movies as well (My Bloody Valentine)... but this movie apparently is meant to be kinda Snakes on a Plane campy anyway. He's clearly just butthurt because they took away his directing spot on the franchise.Tiamat666 said:
James Cameron is "special." Yes, he is brilliant at generating big budget movies. The fact that you can call Aliens an action film is a testament to how poorly I view him. Alien is perhaps the greatest sci-fi horror (if not sci-fi in general) film of all time. James Cameron stripped away what made it good, said "maybe if we include five hundred of these and remove the tension it will be better!" and released it to huge success. Success doesn't mean it's any good... the same thing happened to 28 Days Later vs. 28 Weeks Later. The first one was amazing, atmospheric, deep, the second was a bloodbath.
I'm not saying all his movies are terrible. I'm just saying the movies are good and he happens to direct them. Terminator, good. The Abyss, good. Titanic, good. Avatar, James Cameron's biggest wankfest yet, and all of his directoral flaws are right there on the longest film I ever had to sit through... I'm pretty sure I could get through Andy Warhol's Sleep easier.
James Cameron is a butthole. I was one of the top three Alien supporters in the Escapist's AvP deal.... they know I'm looking out for them.
I guess you just don't like James Cameron, because look at what's going on here:AstorSapolsky said:
He made "Avatar" and people here a bitching about the lame, recycled story they've seen a thousand times before. He made "Aliens" and you are upset that he turned it into something new. So either way, people will complain.
Yeah, the original Alien is a great sci-fi horror. So what if he made the sequel an action flic? He didn't ruin anything because it's still a pretty good movie (understatement). Instead he expanded the story, also made it deeper and more interesting, and increased the appeal of the Alien franchise to a much wider audience. What's wrong with that? Is there some kind of secret writers codex where it says "Thou shall not switch genre in sequels"? I think the "Aliens" we got is alot more interesting the way it is than if it had been an "Alien 2". We already had one of those.
But also, why not make new movies based on old ideas? This happens all the time, so I don't quite understand what the fuzz on Avatar is about. Maybe without the book "Starship Troopers", we would never have had the "Aliens" movie. Without "Aliens" we would perhaps never have had "Warhammer 40k" or "StarCraft". All of these franchises are basically remakes of remakes, yet hardly anyone complains about those. Hell, without Isaac Asimovs "Foundation" series we might not have had Star Wars. I don't care if old ideas get reused, as long as it happens in a high-quality.
But I agree with you that 28 Weeks Later is nowhere as good as the prequel.
As much as I love James Cameron's movies, all of them for that matter, his ego is quite annoying. I mean seriously, you can tell from recent Avatar interviews about how full of himself he is, but whatever because as long as he makes movies that I love, then so be it. However, I feel like he's crossing the line to tell other directors what technology they can and cannot use. He doesn't have that right, ya know, filmmaking is a democratic process. He doesn't own that process, he just made some good movies.
I love how the guy calls James Cameron Jim, and Martin Scorsese Marty as if they're all in preschool together. I also love how he ends it. It basically reads, " James Cameron, you're full of shit. Now go watch my movie in a theater near you!"
I think they both have fair points, and each also need to simmer down a wee bit. As far as the retort of the article's topic, it has some validity but also is a bit verbose and needs to be trimmed down to make a clear point while not trying to advertise seeing Piranhas 3D with an audience. He had a stronger start and should have tried to keep with that because he has some films under his belt that I think are quite worthy of notice.
I enjoyed Avatar for what it was; it had overall good essential elements while depicting a new "universe" that connects to familiar stories. Say what you will, I am one of those people who would rather see Avatar than Dances with Wolves or Pocahontas, so it did tell a story that some may not have seen through another presentation than science fiction. The Oscars alone probably gave him too big of an ego regarding the film because it was not nearly as defining as Alien, for example. If any movie is a complete copy and paste, it would be Piranha and its entire genre of cheap horror, and more specifically, creatures of the deep.
I enjoyed Avatar for what it was; it had overall good essential elements while depicting a new "universe" that connects to familiar stories. Say what you will, I am one of those people who would rather see Avatar than Dances with Wolves or Pocahontas, so it did tell a story that some may not have seen through another presentation than science fiction. The Oscars alone probably gave him too big of an ego regarding the film because it was not nearly as defining as Alien, for example. If any movie is a complete copy and paste, it would be Piranha and its entire genre of cheap horror, and more specifically, creatures of the deep.
I can't see 3D myself, but after watching it on Bluray (2D), I did not notice any of those absurd camera angles that you know would otherwise be 3D just to have the 3D special effect thrown in carelessly.Blue_vision said:
I am in agreement, and I feel that a lot of the flak that Piranhas 3D received from Cameron and others is rooted in its formulaic approach of Genre-horror + 3D - Worthwhile story (+ cleavage). Cameron should have backed up his whole "movie renaissance" point by distinguishing specifically why movies like Piranha are not advancing 3D in film rather than simply criticizing it in more general terms. Regardless, I'm somewhat sad inside that the Sci-fi channel-level of stories can be passed into theaters now with 3D.Blue_vision said: