James Cameron Rips Into Piranha 3D
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dude, I haven't paid attention to James since this came out:
And I was born in '96, so it show's how much I care about the rest of his films.
Piranha 3D seems like a 3D version of this:
And I was born in '96, so it show's how much I care about the rest of his films.
Piranha 3D seems like a 3D version of this:
Blimey.
All I know is this, neither 'Expandables' NOR 'Piranha 3D', and NOT EVEN 'Vampires Suck' are any sort of movies which should be even...written or made. I mean honestly, dumb fun is fun, but it seems kinda like with "indie games" and their artsy appeal of big heads and 'moral narrative' cheap dumb movies are being defended under that banner of 'mindless fun'.
Considering that there are about 700/800 movies being made every-year in the bloody US alone, I think we should all take a step back, and try to focus abit more.
All I know is this, neither 'Expandables' NOR 'Piranha 3D', and NOT EVEN 'Vampires Suck' are any sort of movies which should be even...written or made. I mean honestly, dumb fun is fun, but it seems kinda like with "indie games" and their artsy appeal of big heads and 'moral narrative' cheap dumb movies are being defended under that banner of 'mindless fun'.
Considering that there are about 700/800 movies being made every-year in the bloody US alone, I think we should all take a step back, and try to focus abit more.
Cameron's a bit of a cock but i agree that people aren't going to take 3D seriously if it's just being used for gimmicks all the time.
3D can be used to make something slightly more immersive, give a better sense of scale and blah blah, not that it works for everyone mind you.
But the 2nd they use gimmicks and poke something at the screen that just throws immersion out of the window, and everyone in the cinema suddenly realizes they're just watching a tacky film.
3D can be used to make something slightly more immersive, give a better sense of scale and blah blah, not that it works for everyone mind you.
But the 2nd they use gimmicks and poke something at the screen that just throws immersion out of the window, and everyone in the cinema suddenly realizes they're just watching a tacky film.
Screw James Cameron, the last two films he made were horrible. Learn to make movies again and then you can bad mouth other movies.
3D is just a cheap gimick to keep people going to the theaters. So there is no problem with a stupid movie using it. Cameron is not the messiah of the medium and should really just pull his head out of his own ass.
Renaissance my ass. The Last Airbender and Clash of the Titans aint exactly the Sistene Chapel and the Mona Lisa, dude, and Avatar's not even up to par with Cameron's older films, much less any kind of forerunner in the evolution of cinema...
Renaissance. That's what you call the deluge of overpriced, bloated special effects films you've brought upon us, Cameron?
Renaissance. That's what you call the deluge of overpriced, bloated special effects films you've brought upon us, Cameron?
Very nicely said. And frankly, I was overjoyed to see Scott Pilgrim NOT be in 3D.Scrumpmonkey said:
Ahh so badly this.Suskie said:
Someone needs to puch Cameron, hard, and film it..
OT: I don't really think Piranha 3D was supposed to be a 3D epic like Toy Story, more of an experiment of what they can do with the 3D technology and how it was usable for greater immersion..
Seeing as how Avatar was nothing more than a piece of heavy-handed colonialist allegory that hit the audience over the head with the "LOOK I HAZ A POINT AND IT'S IMPORTANT" stick so many times I walked out with a headache, and owes its entire success to the shiny, pretty packaging, James Cameron has no right to criticize anyone else's work.
I honestly didn't think that 3D enhanced the experience of watching Avatar to begin with, so I'd be interested to know what the "proper" application of the technology is, in Cameron's eyes.
I honestly didn't think that 3D enhanced the experience of watching Avatar to begin with, so I'd be interested to know what the "proper" application of the technology is, in Cameron's eyes.
Pirahna 3D is amazing. (my opinion)
Avatar is also amazing. (also '' '')
3D is, and always will be, a shit, cheap trick that I forget about halfway through the film. (fact)
If I get a choice to see a film in 2D or 3D, I always choose the former because making a film 3D is detrimental to the quality of the image (really pissed me off throughout Toy Story 3, which was amazing)
3D only barely works in amusement park rides like the Spiderman Ride in Universal Studios Florida, where movement and special effects help to reinforce the illusion.
Avatar is also amazing. (also '' '')
3D is, and always will be, a shit, cheap trick that I forget about halfway through the film. (fact)
If I get a choice to see a film in 2D or 3D, I always choose the former because making a film 3D is detrimental to the quality of the image (really pissed me off throughout Toy Story 3, which was amazing)
3D only barely works in amusement park rides like the Spiderman Ride in Universal Studios Florida, where movement and special effects help to reinforce the illusion.
Can't really argue with that, especially point three!!!King_Burger said:
While from what I hear the 3D in Avatar was not cheesy or overdone to hinder the overall quality, to say that 3D will usher in a movie renaissance is a bit laughable considering the majority of 3D films are more in line (or simply worse) than Piranha. Yes, Avatar did not suffer in the 2D version from being too obvious about the 3D, but a majority of films that do incorporate 3D are not better off in the end once the moviegoers leave the theater.
I do not think that ANY renaissance would have "Step Up 3D" within spitting distance of it, without a doubt. Hell, Twilight of all things is around during this period of cinematic "enlightenment" so it's quite clear that James Cameron truly is identifying simply the next technological ploy for theaters to draw in a bigger crowds than the movie would typically see; read: gimmick.
I think that a true film renaissance would be where there were more good films released than those that outright suck. And hopefully where Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (Epic/Superhero/Disaster(yeah it was) Movie, Meet the Spartans, and Vampire Sucks) were banished to eternal perdition.
I believe that only big sci-fi movies and non-serious horror movies should be in 3D TRON looks awesome, avatar was great but the best 3D movie I saw was "The Final Destination" it knew it was stupid and had fun with it. but I saw Piranha 3D, and it was just "Meh", it didn't take much advantage of the 3D and I guess it was not being serious but a few of the deaths made me feel a bit guilty for laughing (When you show the muscle and bone of a person who is crying that they can't move, it's not funny, when the person holds about 27 gallons of blood and loses all their limbs after being killed by a salad fork it's funny).
I don't think Piranha 3d was supposed to much more then like one of those old horror creature movies. 3D adds to the camp factor
Opinions vary, he's entitled to his.
I enjoy various kinds of movies. I think one of the problems with arguements about this kind of thing is that the people argueing the positions seem to think that people only like one kind of thing, or that liking something that they don't like, means you won't agree with them on something else.
For example, let's look at horror movies, or even specific popular but much maligned generes like "Torture Porn" which hasn't gone as far as it can yet (the definitive movie of the genere has yet to be created). I can enjoy this kind of thing, but I like other kinds of movies as well.
I look at MovieBob's review of "The Expendables" as an example. He seems to totally miss the point that he insulted the viewers who liked it, rather than just saying he didn't like it. Saying "your the worst kind of person" to pretty much everyone.
James Cameron is basically saying that because movies can be better, and enjoyable on some deep level (which is ironic given his creation of Avatar) that this means people shouldn't enjoy putting their brain into neutral and partaking in some intellectual slumming.
"Pirahna 3D" is basically an exercise in intellectual slumming, the purpose is to enjoy the sight of hot bodies, over the top violence, and snicker over the idea of prehistoric fish somehow escaping and making snackfood out of thinly veiled analogies to both the people from "Girls Gone Wild" and "MTV Beach Party" productions.
It's sort of like when I sit down and watch "Torture Porn" as some people call it, I'm a jaded guy sitting down who wants to see something really messed up.... like people who watch horror in general (analyze it as you will). I'm not there for some deep experience.
What's more I'll be honest in saying that most "high brow" horror movies today strike me as being ridiculous. Oh sure, you see some good character development in many cases, but as far as the whole purpose of the movie... the horror stuff, most of them seem to degenerate into wierd stuff happening around a general theme. Half the time "they" (movie makers trying to be high brow) don't even bother to try and justify it, instead spouting "well, the not understanding is what makes it so scary". In a few cases that works, but in most cases it generates the worst kind of junk movie.
To put this into perspective "Saw" is not high art, but it's pretty straightforward. Insane engineer (or his successor) puts people in puzzle traps that require them to mutilate themselves horribly in order to live, which most people are unable to bring themselves to seriously try until the last few seconds of their lives when it's too late. I can understand why waking up in a situation like that is freaky, I understand the motives (such as they are), and how the guy is supposed to be operating.
Compare this to some "horror movies" where say you might watch for like an hour where little wierd things happen (oh gee, that coffee cup wasn't where I left it) followed by some off camera screaming from people, since a lot of times they won't even show a proper ending, finale, or monster. I love coming up with my own ridiculous explanations for some of those movies. For every one like "Paranormal Activity" that manages to be halfway decent (despite the camcorder gimick, which has yet to see the definitive "documentary horror movie" despite the potential, it being mostly an excuse to not show anything), there are probably half a dozen or more where for all we know the actual villain of the whole thing WAS the coffee cup which was haunted... all the guys in these movies perhaps buying from the same cursed coffee cup stall at the same flea market as part of some super "Avengers" type crossover being planned to be released the day before 12/20/12... where all he coffee cups will merge into a giant robot and rampage "cloverfield" style through earth killing everyone and fulfilling the prophecy coming "tomorrow".
I enjoy various kinds of movies. I think one of the problems with arguements about this kind of thing is that the people argueing the positions seem to think that people only like one kind of thing, or that liking something that they don't like, means you won't agree with them on something else.
For example, let's look at horror movies, or even specific popular but much maligned generes like "Torture Porn" which hasn't gone as far as it can yet (the definitive movie of the genere has yet to be created). I can enjoy this kind of thing, but I like other kinds of movies as well.
I look at MovieBob's review of "The Expendables" as an example. He seems to totally miss the point that he insulted the viewers who liked it, rather than just saying he didn't like it. Saying "your the worst kind of person" to pretty much everyone.
James Cameron is basically saying that because movies can be better, and enjoyable on some deep level (which is ironic given his creation of Avatar) that this means people shouldn't enjoy putting their brain into neutral and partaking in some intellectual slumming.
"Pirahna 3D" is basically an exercise in intellectual slumming, the purpose is to enjoy the sight of hot bodies, over the top violence, and snicker over the idea of prehistoric fish somehow escaping and making snackfood out of thinly veiled analogies to both the people from "Girls Gone Wild" and "MTV Beach Party" productions.
It's sort of like when I sit down and watch "Torture Porn" as some people call it, I'm a jaded guy sitting down who wants to see something really messed up.... like people who watch horror in general (analyze it as you will). I'm not there for some deep experience.
What's more I'll be honest in saying that most "high brow" horror movies today strike me as being ridiculous. Oh sure, you see some good character development in many cases, but as far as the whole purpose of the movie... the horror stuff, most of them seem to degenerate into wierd stuff happening around a general theme. Half the time "they" (movie makers trying to be high brow) don't even bother to try and justify it, instead spouting "well, the not understanding is what makes it so scary". In a few cases that works, but in most cases it generates the worst kind of junk movie.
To put this into perspective "Saw" is not high art, but it's pretty straightforward. Insane engineer (or his successor) puts people in puzzle traps that require them to mutilate themselves horribly in order to live, which most people are unable to bring themselves to seriously try until the last few seconds of their lives when it's too late. I can understand why waking up in a situation like that is freaky, I understand the motives (such as they are), and how the guy is supposed to be operating.
Compare this to some "horror movies" where say you might watch for like an hour where little wierd things happen (oh gee, that coffee cup wasn't where I left it) followed by some off camera screaming from people, since a lot of times they won't even show a proper ending, finale, or monster. I love coming up with my own ridiculous explanations for some of those movies. For every one like "Paranormal Activity" that manages to be halfway decent (despite the camcorder gimick, which has yet to see the definitive "documentary horror movie" despite the potential, it being mostly an excuse to not show anything), there are probably half a dozen or more where for all we know the actual villain of the whole thing WAS the coffee cup which was haunted... all the guys in these movies perhaps buying from the same cursed coffee cup stall at the same flea market as part of some super "Avengers" type crossover being planned to be released the day before 12/20/12... where all he coffee cups will merge into a giant robot and rampage "cloverfield" style through earth killing everyone and fulfilling the prophecy coming "tomorrow".