Home Videos Photos Shop
PerezHilton CocoPerez Khloé Selena G. Meghan Markle T. Swift PerezTV

James Cameron Thinks Hollywood Needs To "Try Harder" When It Comes To 3-D

| Filed under: Film Flickers


And we totally agree with him.

James Cameron is one of the biggest movie producers of all time so he knows what he's talking about.

When he was recently asked what "Hollywood needs to do to get the public engaged in 3-D movies from a creative perspective," he responded with this:

"This is a good moment for Hollywood to acknowledge that they have to try harder to maintain the idea that 3-D is a premium experience. We can't take cheap routes to offer a 3-D title in the marketplace. I'm not a big fan of 3-D conversion because I think it produces what I call 2-and-a-half-D. It doesn't have the depth of native 3-D that's actually been photographed in 3-D. Post conversion tends to be a little harder on the eyes and not give you a good depth experience. The audience is reacting and they're saying, 'Wait a minute, I'm paying a premium price for a ticket and I'm not getting the added value that I wanted from 3-D.'"

Preach, James! It's ridiculous that we're paying $15-$20 for a movie ticket when the movie wasn't even FILMED in 3-D. What kind of BS is that? We are totally on his side.

And besides, this guy made like one of the, if not THE, most successful 3-D films in movie history. He set the standards, Hollywood, so now you have to follow.

[Image via WENN.]

Tags: , , , ,

Stars We Lost In 2018
Best Celebrity Movie Couples (Who Never Dated IRL)!
Stars Who Have Spoken Out About Working With Woody Allen!
Movies That Actually SHOULD Get Remade & Somehow Haven't Yet!
The Most Tragic Love Stories In TV/Film!
10 Horror Movies Netflix Says Are Too Scary To Finish!

19 comments to “James Cameron Thinks Hollywood Needs To "Try Harder" When It Comes To 3-D”

  1. 1

    You know what? Not everything needs to be in 3D.

  2. 2

    3D has nothing to do with CINEMA !
    If I want to see things in real dimension, I just have to walk on the street, it's waaaaaay less expensive, and for sure more interessant that all those useless blockbusters.

  3. 3

    dear mr. cameron: not everything needs to be as technologically updated as it can be- for that matter, not everything needs to be in 3D. For god's sake, you not only broke the movie of all time record but then actually BROKE YOUR OWN RECORD AGAIN with avatar! so calm the fuck down and have a martini and just fucking enjoy your success before your ambition makes you pop a blood vessel. honestly, how much bigger can your ego get, sir? you have evreything and yet it isn't good enough? you're like steve jobs but with a stick up your ass

  4. 4

    Re: hb2578 – amen

  5. 5

    Pretty sure James Cameron doesnt realize how many people actually have motion sickness like, so if all those on Hollywood follow command of Lord Cameron, then they would lose this moviegoer.

  6. 6

    Hollywood needs to first "try harder" at better, more original, more literate scripts. Once they get that right, then they can work on this extra junk that currently only adds fluff to poor quality projects. His included.

  7. 7

    You know, nobody saw Avatar because it was a "good movie", they saw it because of the effects. Now, does hardly anyone talk about it a couple years later? No. It was a very shallow, predictable movie. So push all the gimmicky shit you want, Cameron, because people are only going to see movies if they're good. It's innovative now but in a few years people really won't give a fuck once it becomes commonplace and they see Avatar for what it really is….James Cameron playing with high-tech toys and letting production artists and CGI designers do everything.

  8. 8

    Avatar was awesome in 3D now everyone is trying to just on the 3D train. I love love love HP…I saw it in 2D and again in 3D…but it did not need to be in 3D….2D was just fine.

  9. 9

    He's totally right. A true 3-D experience should pull you INTO the film and surround you with it, not need to resort to cheap tricks of having things occasional pop or fly out at you.

  10. 10

    Oh please..3D movies arent all that fantastic, and Avatar was a shitty movie by itself, thats why it needed 3D

  11. 11

    There's really no need for 3D movies other than for Hollywood to charge the public more to watch it. As it is if given the choice to watch a movie in 2D or 3D I'll choose 2D every time. If Hollywood really wants me to go to a 3D movie they'll have to resolve two issues first. First of all I'll never go to a 3D film until I can watch it without any form of glasses. Secondly I won't pay more to watch a movie in 3D than what it costs to watch the same movie in 2D

  12. 12

    I'm gonna have to disagree with Mr. Cameron. They don't need to try harder to make better 3D movies, they need to STOP wasting our time with 3D movies, because we just don't care! 3D, no matter HOW it is shot, is NOT the most impressive amazing experience to a movie goer. We want GOOD high quality movies with original ideas that are written and executed well. Instead we are getting lazy, poorly put together crap, and are feeling insulted. Forget the 3D and work on better concepts, writing, and execution of all elements. Give is something NEW and entertaining!

  13. 13

    3D waqs and still is a gimmick to put butts in higher priced movie seats. And like in the 1950's it worked for a while and everyone wanted a part of the action (heck, The Three Stooges even made two 3D shorts). But soon the public tired of it, mainly I suppose because of the uncomfortable glasses still needed to see 3D which if you're already a glasses wearer makes the experience all the ore dreadful. And the process adds nothing to the story. Zip. So unless tech genius Cameron invents a 3D without glasses and without a foolishly high price, the "This too shall pass", as it is said.

  14. 14

    I try and avoid the 3D movies, besides the extra money to rent the glasses, most of them are not movies I want to watch anyway (more into good drama and some comedy with class). It just does not seem to add to the experience.

  15. 15

    Look he was asked a question about the 3D experience. Never once did he say ALL movies should be made into 3D, he says that those who are making 3D movies should make them at a better quality because audiences are being charged for premium tickets. He is just saying if you are going to put out a movie oand try to sell the audience a 3D experience at a higher ticket price then do it right. Right meaning that it is shot in 3D and not converted from 2D to 3D because it is just a mediocre experience. No one is forcing you to watch 3D movies that is your prerogative . For those of us who do enjoy them I completely agree, I won't go watch a "3D"movie if it has been converted because it is not worth the extra money.

  16. Low says – reply to this


    3D is amazing but most of the movies suck in 3D. Even the new Harry Potter movie sucks in 3D. Hollywood can try MUCH harder.

    You see movies like Hubble 3D in IMAX and it makes you want to toss rocks at the screen to most Hollywood 3D movies.

    I agreee most movies do not need to have anything to do with 3D… but Science Fiction movies and movies like that… done right in 3D can be AMAZING!

  17. 17

    Maybe Hollywood needs to work harder at coming up with original movies rather than just re-makes/3D re-releases. No one really likes 3D that much, I feel like we're all being forced to think it's amazing (even though, personally, it gives me a headache)

  18. 18

    most 3D movies do suck. 3D is just a cheap marketing ploy to get dumb kids to want to watch their movies.

  19. 19

    Re: Scatter – I agree!