ROTTEN TOMATOES: Cameron Claims Digital 3-D Will Save Cinema!

Cameron Claims Digital 3-D Will Save Cinema!

by Scott Weinberg | April 25, 2006

Superstar moviemaker James Cameron ("Titanic," "Aliens," "The Terminator") believes that the way to combat slumping box office returns is to give the moviegoers something they simply can't pirate and watch on their computer: The answer is digital 3-D wizardy.

From Reuters: ""D-cinema can do it, for a number of reasons, but because d-cinema is an enabling technology for 3-D. Digital 3-D is a revolutionary form of showmanship that is within our grasp. It can get people off their butts and away from their portable devices and get people back in the theaters where they belong."

...

"We're so scared of piracy right now that we're ready to pimp out our mothers," Cameron said. "This whole day-and-date DVD release nonsense? Here's an answer: (Digital cinema is) one of the strongest reasons I've been pushing 3-D for the past few years because it offers a powerful experience which you can only have in the movie theater."

--Click here for the full article!

Related Items

Movie:	The Terminator
	Aliens
Celeb:	James Cameron

(1-20 of 23 posts) | Reply

AllHallows writes:
on Apr 25 2006 06:25 AM

"We're so scared of piracy right now that we're ready to pimp out our mothers," Cameron said

That cracked me up beyond belief. Cameron rules.

(Reply to this)

fatmc writes:
on Apr 25 2006 06:29 AM

you're the man cameron!

(Reply to this)

Aoiboy writes:
on Apr 25 2006 06:53 AM

His constant rants about 3D cinema make him sound geekier and geekier each time around... I wish he would get to work on Battle Angel once and for all...

(Reply to this)

SpikesInMySkull writes:
on Apr 25 2006 07:25 AM

While I'm not sure that agree that 3-D is the answer, it's so nice to see a filmmaker take responsibility for his own profit. I've been saying for a while now, that your profit is your responsibility, it's up to YOU to compete and make money, and if you can't stop crying about it because there are still lots of groceries to bag and ditches to be dug.

Sure piracy is illegal, I'm not saying I condone it, what I am saying is this: your profit is your responsibility which means it's your job to compete and succeed in the market climate as it exists. Can't compete because of internet piracy? Too bad, bag my groceries. Can't make your business model work with all these new fangled portable devices going around? Too bad, bag my groceries.

Like I said, I'm not sure I agree with Cameron about 3-D, but he's abosolutely right in that it's the film industries responsibility to get people into theaters, and if they fail to do so, they have noone to blame but themselves.

(Reply to this)

Witless_Sod writes:
on Apr 25 2006 07:34 AM

1- The Cinematic industry is not in a slump: box-office wise, last year was a record breaking year. This year, business IS down, but you can't break records all the time. It's like saying Ichiro Suzuki is in a slump because he didn't go 5 for 5 at bat as he had done the previous evening. Expecting unlimited growth is unreasonable.

2- I'm not convinced that 3-D digital technology IS the answer. 3-D (though not digital 3-D) has been around for some time, yet 3-D movies haven't been breaking box-office records.

3- Even if digital 3-D were to catch on, it constitutes at best a temporary solution. A techno gimmick might be popular as a novelty item, but the novelty will eventually wear off. I wouldn't be so sure about people not being able to copy 3-D digital and watch it on their computer. Right now, they can't, but if 3-D digital catches on huge, I'm fairly certain that people will want a 3-D digital home theater system, and from then on, it will only be a matter of time before someone figures out a way to pirate it, going back to square one.

Final verdict on digital 3-D? I have nothing against it in principle, and I'm sure that it looks great. But digital 3-D won't save a movie that doesn't have solid fundamentals (interesting story, believable acting, good direction). I fail to see how 3-D Rob Schneider will be better than 2-D Rob Schneider.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Apr 25 2006 07:52 AM

What if we don't want 3-D. For action movies maybe, but what about stuff like Brokeback Mountain? Yeah. That scene in the tent really needed to be 3 dimensional.

(Reply to this)

pota1967 writes:
on Apr 25 2006 08:33 AM

[b]Its like the 1950s[/b]
all over again
what would be next, smell-O-vision? hahahaha

(Reply to this)

necron91 writes:
on Apr 25 2006 08:55 AM

i thought the story was the key to saving cinema, not all this fancy technology. yeah it may look nice but we're all conscious of the story of a film at the end of the day, that should be the heart of it, hell i don't make films and i even know that!

(Reply to this)

Callpacas writes:
on Apr 25 2006 09:13 AM

the thing is why would people want to go to the cinemas if they can enjoy it a few months before the movie is released on dvd. the difference is pointless with the advent of cheap home theater systems. 3d would make a dramatic change and it could be the first steps in wide spread 3d imaging applications---minority report here we come. just how cool would 3d at home be?

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Apr 25 2006 09:41 AM

In reply to this comment (#834382)
The idea is that 3-d would offer something you couldn't see at home. Oh yeah and I don't know who said the box-office was down but it's actually up this year.

(Reply to this)

lavatory love machine writes:
on Apr 25 2006 10:48 AM

the thing it's that cameron knows his movies are always big hits, so from that position is easy to make experiments like 3D

let's see is brett ratner has the balls to take a risk like this

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Apr 25 2006 01:12 PM

With the possible exception of Money Talks, all of Brett Ratner's films have been hits too. Sure, not Titanic sized hits, but they didn't cost $200 million to make either.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Apr 25 2006 02:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#834382)
My thoughts exactly.

(Reply to this)

CrazyGhost78 writes:
on Apr 25 2006 03:13 PM

I love James Cameron, but I don't think 3-D is the way to go. A witless_sod said, people will want it in their homes, then it will end up being pirated anyway. Plus sometimes I'm just in the mood to pop in a movie at home and relax, and being bombarded from every direction, with any kind of imaging, would get annoying after a while. Thats why I love surround sound, can turn it on and off when I feel it appropriate.

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on Apr 25 2006 03:56 PM

Did everyone forget the big picture here? Star Wars in 3D!!!! how amazing will it be? ask me when im dead.

(Reply to this)

bigcfk writes:
on Apr 25 2006 04:32 PM

true... 3-D movies are always great, AND make lots of money

Spy Kids 3-D anyone?

(Reply to this)

tyler8186 writes:
on Apr 25 2006 06:35 PM

wow
i'm glad directors know the history of hollywood

it didn't help hollywood in the 50s, despite some mild successes
phazed out in like 2 years
good thinking Cameron

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Apr 25 2006 07:14 PM

Hollywood resorted to gimmickry like 3-D back in the 1950s to combat the threat of the home television, which at the time was probably a bigger threat than some paper-thin iTunes-cellPod-videogame-text-phone is today. I'm not worried that some neckache will ruin all of cinema. If you want to get people back in the movie theaters, I suggest you roll the projector, play them a movie and make sure the seats are clean. Last I checked (box office receipts), it's still been working.

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Apr 26 2006 04:46 AM

Raise your hand if you saw Polar Express on I-max. It wasn't gimmicky in the least and I definitely think it's the way of the future for cinema. Somewhere between a third to a half of Polar Express's reciepts came from I-max. It's also not anything that could ever be recreated at home. If you haven't seen Polar Express on I-max and you live in a major metro you have a home-work asignment. Make sure you see Polar Express on I-max this Christmas then tell me 3-d isn't the way of the future. I had to buy tickets a week and a half in advance for the polar fuCkin express because it was in I-max 3-d. You people are living in the past.

(Reply to this)

kfarschman writes:
on Apr 26 2006 10:06 AM

I think the movie industry's fear of piracy is a joke. Treating people like criminals during movie sneaks? Heaven forbid someone might have the ability to shoot a couple minutes of video with their cell phone (oh no!), or actually sneak a camera into the theater (have fun selling 2$ copys of it in Chinatown!). Yeah that's how I want to see Spiderman 3, on some grainy pirated DVD that recorded the digital surround sound through a one channel handheld camera mic. Oh, the person next to him is talking the whole time, Fun!! I love my surround sound crammed into mono and all echo-y. That is definately better than watching it at the theatre. And a really good home theatre system isn't that affordable and even a great system isn't the same (well depends on how good the theatre you go to is, I go to an all THX theatre).

The music industry's fears were justified because you could illegally download music at CD quality. Now if the music industry fought piracy saying it affected their concert profits what would you think!?

The film and or cinema industry is doing the same thing as oil companys. They're inflating the prices saying that they need to because they are "in trouble", blaming bulls*** reasons like "trouble in the middle-east" or "piracy". Then on top of that they expect the goverment to give them huge tax breaks to help them out further while they have all their accountants finding new ways to hide their bloated profits.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com