Comments
After Cameron unleashes Avatar on us December 2009 he is reportedly going to be looking to go 3-D with a drama, which, if I am not mistaken, would be the first time something like that would have ever been done.
The Hollywood Reporter tells us that he has his eyes on "The Dive," a true story about the romance between controversial Cuban free diver Francisco "Pipin" Ferreras and Frenchwoman Audrey Mestre. Under his guidance, Mestre became a free diver who broke several world records but died in 2002 while competing. (Free-diving competitors must hold their breath for long periods of time while deep under water.)
Cameron tells the rag, "It's a drama, a love story... This will require underwater photography, which will look gorgeous in 3-D."
He then says, "I think (3-D for drama) is the big overlooked area (now) because the economics don't really drive that direction."
I am sorry, I just don't see this working. That is not to say I would be more than interested to see it in action, but drama doesn't need that. Sure, it might look cool and feel like I am swimming with the fishes, but what does it do for the story? On top of that, I still have to wear those stupid ass glasses.
I don't know. Obviously I am not a huge fan of 3-D in terms that I want filmmakers to focus on the film itself not what they are going to have to do to make things pop out of the screen and startle me. Then again, things can always change and if any director can do it, it would be James Cameron.
RSS FEEDS
RSS Feed
news feeds
But, I think 3D ruins a movie.
I think once something gets put out, its put out. THEN make the 3D version, so us who dont prefer 3D dont have to sit through that shit!
(May. 16, 2008 - 8:42:14 AM)
Its time to get over the whole gimmick thing. I think it is a crutch that many writers use when they just don't have anything to say. Create some tension as it were.
That just puts me to sleep. The big three animation houses are putting NOTHING BUT 3D movies out from now on. Thats huge.
Cameron has a $250m budget for Avatar (my estimate) - thats huge. He and Spielberg, Peter Jackson and Tim Burton will carry the torch - and others are signing on rapidly.
Look at all the upcoming 3D movies on my site MarketSaw (seriously, this ain't a plug - just check how many there ARE) and tell me that its a gimmick!
Sooner or later you are gonna be the only ones left saying the world is flat...
-jim
(May. 16, 2008 - 6:17:03 PM)
All I know, if 3D is the future of cinema, I dont want to have any part of it. 3D is completely unnecessary for a truly good film, and certainly cant save a bad one.
Leave 3D for the theme parks, let filmmakers focus of making their films truly great. Would 3D make the Godfather any better? Maybe add a little zip to Ben-Hur? Hell no.
Truly great movies dont need to rely on a GIMMICK like 3D to be great.
(May. 16, 2008 - 6:58:55 PM)
The visuals get the most focus and the rest gets left behind a bit.
(May. 17, 2008 - 10:44:31 AM)
As to your post, just because money is being spent on 3D and the films are being made doesn't mean it isn't a gimmick. It's an awful comparison. It doesn't change the fact that I don't want to see it, and who is it that isn't going to make anything but 3D films from now on? The big three animation houses? Big freakin deal? Oh boy, animation in 3D, there's a novel idea.
(May. 17, 2008 - 1:16:26 PM)