Movies Will Suck In The Future

James Cameron made a metric shitload of money thanks to Avatar.  Since he shot it in 3D, Cameron is something of an expert on the technology.  Technology, he claims, that will change how we watch things on both the big and small screen.

Every cinema will be capable of showing 3D films within five years, James Cameron said yesterday at the launch of a new venture which aims to make the technology ubiquitous on both the big and small screen.

The Cameron-Pace Group, which utilises technology developed for the film Avatar, aims to encourage film-makers, broadcasters and games manufacturers to embrace the brave new world of stereoscope. Cameron has partnered with Vince Pace, with whom he worked on the Fusion 3D camera system.

“Our strategic plan is to make 3D ubiquitous over the next five to 10 years on all platforms,” Cameron told the Hollywood Reporter. He said he expected to see 100% adoption of the technology in cinemas within three to five years, as well as rapid expansion of the home market.

“We are shifting from having to create 50-70 (camera systems) for movies to thousands of rigs that need to be got out there for the rapidly growing broadcasting business,” said Cameron. With 3D TVs already available for the home and TV channels broadcasting in stereoscope, the film-maker said there was a “content gap” which the new venture hoped to help fill.

“Broadcasting is the future of 3D,” Cameron said during a keynote speech at the National Association of Broadcasters Show in Las Vegas yesterday. “In two years, everything will be produced in 3D and 2D versions will be extracted from that.”

The Terminator director added that 3D in the home would really take off once new technology emerged which meant that viewers did not have to wear glasses. The adoption curve “is going to go ballistic” said Cameron.

Some reports last year seized on box-office data suggesting the number of people preferring to see a film in 3D had dropped dramatically as evidence that the boom might be nearing its end. Hollywood studios have scoffed at the notion, however, and with three out of the top five films at the global box office last year having been screened in stereoscope, naysayers may be waiting a while for the fad to fizzle out.

I hate the 3D gimmick and, unless James Cameron is willing to throw some of his 3D money my way, I don’t see me changing my opinion anytime soon.

– Not all movies need to be in 3D.  Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.  In fact, most movies that have been released in 3D didn’t benefit at all from the tech.  Showing a movie in 3D will not distract me from the fact that a movie sucks.  (Drive Angry, I’m looking at you.)

– Three of last year’s top five movies were 3D flicks, and somehow that justifies the use of 3D.  I seriously doubt that Toy Story 3, Alice in Wonderland, and Shrek Forever After would have suffered had they not been shot in 3D.  Two of those movies happen to be extremely popular franchises that happen to benefit from the fact that people were going to see those flicks anyway, so charging an extra three to four bucks per ticket only inflates what they would have drawn.

Of course, I’m not bazillionaire James Cameron so what do I know.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s