We are now officially less than six months out from Avatar and still haven’t even seen a still shot from the film. James Cameron has spent the past couple years talking up how much he’s revolutionizing 3D/stereo technology, how it needs to be perfect before being presented and pointing out how much of the industry is stunting the tech’s growth by applying 3D effects as a cheap afterthought. Fair enough, if you’re going to do them, they’re surely best when conceived from the ground up. (I remain suspicious, however, of the way Cameron said he didn’t personally look at anything in 3D when he shot the movie, but relied on assistants to make sure everything checked out. That’s… interesting.)
There’s been all this talk about his technological work that I’ve been reasonably convinced the film’s story has taken a backseat. No matter how many times he protests that assertion, he still sounds most enthusiastic when talking about 3D while chatting up the rest of the film seems a chore. But okay, even though I’m currently staunchly against 3D as I’ve experienced it as a distracting effect that discourages viewers from exploring the full screen and deflates if not destroys the power of framing and composition, I could still respect the man for going forward with this supposed new pure approach to 3D. Maybe he was on to something. Maybe he’s worked out all these problems. He certainly seems dedicated to doing it right and only doing it right.
Then I saw that Deadline Hollywood reported he told an audience that he would be interested in converting Terminator 2: Judgment Day to 3D if it were deemed cost effective. Wait, what?! That flies in the face of everything he’s been pursuing and preaching for the last several years! This is coming from the man who has flatout stated that it “doesn’t make any sense to shoot in 2D and convert to 3D.” I’m at a loss for even attempting to figure out how Cameron could reconcile these two things. I’m beginning to wonder if he’s just become a tech fetishist like Robert Zemeckis. Or maybe he’s just plain lost it. That would help explain that dreadful presentation he gave at E3.
Nope. Cameron was clear. He detests converting a first run movie from 2D to 3D as it should have been shot in 3D to begin with. He likes converting older library movies that were ALREADY shot in 2D and had no choice.
There is a big difference. Nice blog!
That’s still a fairly thin distinction, and one that ignores the fact that the process is still the same. Plus, is there anything to be respected in modifying films from their original forms in the first place? Colorizing b&w films was a travesty, adding 3D is the same kind of nonsense. Some of these tech-obsessed filmmakers need to stop messing with history. I’m looking at you, George Lucas.