James Cameron says the next revolution in cinema is...

Many former collaborators hate the guy, amongst them his ex-wife.

Salomé wrote:

Many former collaborators hate the guy, amongst them his ex-wife.

Which one?

ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Many former collaborators hate the guy, amongst them his ex-wife.

Which one?

Depends on her calender.

ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Many former collaborators hate the guy, amongst them his ex-wife.

Which one?

Well the one I'm aware of is Hamilton. Did he and Bigelow work together as well?

Not sure, but I doubt it. An alpha female and an alpha male rarely make the most stable couple. Their egos collide.

Salomé wrote:

ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Many former collaborators hate the guy, amongst them his ex-wife.

Which one?

Well the one I'm aware of is Hamilton. Did he and Bigelow work together as well?

I was thinking of the ex-Mrs. De Palma.

I like a 2D image and a 3D script.

Watched FRIDAY THE 13TH PART III IN 3D. Equally stupid as the other entries and equally fun on a kitsch level. The 3D worked fine in certain parts, other times it was shit to the point of double vision. I watched it with the old fashioned red-blue 3D glasses, the kind that makes you cross eyed. I really look forward to a blu-ray release of another 80s cheesefest known as JAWS 3D. That should be a real hoot.

Funny thing is James Cameron DESPISES films like that, trashing that movie PIRANHA 3D believing it was hurting the "integrity" of the format. It's a fucking gimmick, that's all it is be and that's all it will ever be treated as such.

I honestly think 3D is going to drop again, no matter how hard Cameron tries pushing it forward. 3D is just a novelty that pops up every 30 years (1950s, 1980s, and now 2010s).

Makeshift Python wrote:

It's a fucking gimmick, that's all it is be and that's all it will ever be treated as such.

I respectfully disagree. Sure, it can be a gimmick, and those films are misusing the benefit of 3-D. But some films, like the Pixar films or even "Avatar," use it simply to add depth of field, and I wouldn't say that's a gimmick.

But it's an unnatural, artificial depth of field, that causes the human eye to work twice as hard to process. It's turning the background of a composition (which in most cases should be secondary) into a foreground, distracting your attention from the actors.