James Cameron Rips Into Piranha 3D
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I actually really enjoyed this movie. It was exactly what I expected it to be: 78 minutes of blood and tits in glorious 3D. I thought it was pretty great as far as mindless summer movies go.
Indeed, a renaissance for movie theatres to try and make themselves out to not be obsolete. They now offer the priviledge to be bothered by rude, obnoxious, and unpredictable people you do not even know and wear a pair of glasses, all for a price hike at the ticket booth. The Avatar 1.3 release in theatres makes it out even more to be just a money-grab renaissance of half-efforts and trip thrills rather than any actual advance in films.
Considering that 3D was "reborn" with lame documentaries and otherwise poor films or movies aimed more at kids (cue ads with wacky effects and "woahhhhhh!"s a-plenty), I think the chaff pretty much drowns the wheat. A few good films came out in 3D or used it well, fine. But if "Piranhas 3D" is what we're going to be seeing more of now, why not revive the miserable '80s while we're killing dreams.
Anyways, I don't see the lasting appeal. I cannot see 3D anymore, but I was on hallucinogenic medication which was far more amusing (bad "trips" aside) and even that got old.
Exactly when did James Cameron become the Lord and Master of movies? Why the heck should I care what he thinks about a movie that is just a silly popcorn horror flick?
Why waste your breathe, Mr. Cameron? It's not like it's going to out compete you. Cheesy B movies have a place in the future as well. Without them, we can't have cheesy movie nights with friends or Mystery Science Theatre 3000. What will we do then when 2D screens are as archaic as 8 tracks? What will we make fun of then?
Avawhat?
Just got home from seeing Piranha 3D. That is EXACTLY what we should be doing with 3D tech.
Okay, the longer answer is: if you think you are going to hate Piranha 3D because you hate all movies like it, you might not. First, it is more a satire of B-grade horror movies than one itself, without going out of its way to make any point that it is a satire, and if you want to enjoy it as B (or C)-grade horror, the film welcomes you to do so.
Second, if you are a heterosexual male or homosexual female, there is a 5 minutes scene that might by itself be worth the price of admission.
It also has scenes that reference both Titanic and The Abyss which might have Cameron up-in-arms, then again, Avatar referenced all kinds of actually good science fiction movies, fantasy movies, and computer games, to the point where (unlike Piranha 3D) it made me wonder if there was anything original about it.
Just got home from seeing Piranha 3D. That is EXACTLY what we should be doing with 3D tech.
Okay, the longer answer is: if you think you are going to hate Piranha 3D because you hate all movies like it, you might not. First, it is more a satire of B-grade horror movies than one itself, without going out of its way to make any point that it is a satire, and if you want to enjoy it as B (or C)-grade horror, the film welcomes you to do so.
Second, if you are a heterosexual male or homosexual female, there is a 5 minutes scene that might by itself be worth the price of admission.
It also has scenes that reference both Titanic and The Abyss which might have Cameron up-in-arms, then again, Avatar referenced all kinds of actually good science fiction movies, fantasy movies, and computer games, to the point where (unlike Piranha 3D) it made me wonder if there was anything original about it.
On top of this he's also an expert of completely missing the point of other movies. My favorite foot in mouth line was from him hosting a 2001: A Space Oddesy special where he said "Kubrick showed us the most effective and powerful special effect is a well told original story." I watched the special last month and my head damn near exploded.Badazzninja said:
Can someone, ANYONE really give me a honest to goodness answer in your own opinion, When DID the artist become more important than the art? if we can even call them that anymore.
I'm sorry but 3d is nothing more then an extra Special Effect, and if we learned anything from the Star Wars prequels sfx do not make a good movie. Personally I'm getting sick of every fucking movie needing to be in 3d now.
What's next? Are they going to take classic movies and make them 3d? 3d is nothing more then Hollywood is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Would Avatar had made nearly as much money as it did if it wasn't 3d? I seriously doubt it.
What's next? Are they going to take classic movies and make them 3d? 3d is nothing more then Hollywood is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Would Avatar had made nearly as much money as it did if it wasn't 3d? I seriously doubt it.
All I have to say is,
Shut the hell up James Cameron!
To be honest, I'd rather sit through an hour and a half of unintentional laughter, crappy film making and excessive nudity (Piranha) than 3 hours of Pocahontas with special effects (Avatar).
I'm not trying to flame on James Cameron, that's just my opinion on the films.
[sub]I'm not saying Piranha was a good movie...[/sub]
Shut the hell up James Cameron!
To be honest, I'd rather sit through an hour and a half of unintentional laughter, crappy film making and excessive nudity (Piranha) than 3 hours of Pocahontas with special effects (Avatar).
I'm not trying to flame on James Cameron, that's just my opinion on the films.
[sub]I'm not saying Piranha was a good movie...[/sub]
What a load of bullshit. Renaissance era my arse. Why is James Cameron serving as the poster boy for this terribly annoying fad.
Avatar wasn't my cup of tea, I thought it was a terribly bland story with some cool effects, but honestly i thought it was BETTER when I saw it on my friends Blu-Ray than it was in 3D at the cinemas.
1080p > 3D
Avatar wasn't my cup of tea, I thought it was a terribly bland story with some cool effects, but honestly i thought it was BETTER when I saw it on my friends Blu-Ray than it was in 3D at the cinemas.
1080p > 3D
Um, what should you be doing with 3D then, huh, Cameron? Is that making a pretentious movie that only flails because it looks really good?
At least Piranha 3D is honest when it comes to its appeal. At least in Piranha 3D it actually amounts to something, albeit really cheap entertainment.
In other words, at least that movie is not a gaping, horrible, insultingly paper-thinpile of rubbish. I figured I shouldn't insult that other movie like that, since there are fans of it that I might genuinely upset. Let's just say I don't like it.
At least Piranha 3D is honest when it comes to its appeal. At least in Piranha 3D it actually amounts to something, albeit really cheap entertainment.
In other words, at least that movie is not a gaping, horrible, insultingly paper-thin
I feel that many people are missing Cameron's point.
Is he berating Piranha for trying to be a "so-bad-it's-good" film? No. He's berating it because it is using 3D as a gimmick.
"But Hubilub" you cry out. "Aren't you one of the people who are opposed to 3D because it is a gimmick".
Yes, I am. But you see, the problem with 3D is that most people just use it to throw shit in your face (literally). It's a gimmick because so few people know what to do with it besides having objects flying into the camera, and so it is used as a gimmick to attempt to enhance a movie going experience.
Cameron is beyond that. He knows how 3D can be used properly, how it can be more than just things flying around. The problem is that I feel barely anyone understands his thought process, and the technology of 3D is going to be misused by people like those who made Piranha 3D, until it is eventually once more forgotten.
I think Cameron is very naive when he thinks that he can take 3D beyond where it always has been. True, he has an idea that might work great, but nobody is going to follow him. NOT because Hollywood doesn't consider any other method to use 3D safe, but because Hollywood is too stupid to realize that there are other methods to use 3D.
Don't believe me? Check out the different trailers for Resident Evil Apocalypse and count how many times things are thrown into the camera. Glasses, Swords, Axes, Shurikens, and I'll bet you a few slow-mo bullets will make it into the film, you just wait.
Cameron is not wrong, he's just fighting a battle he can't win.
Is he berating Piranha for trying to be a "so-bad-it's-good" film? No. He's berating it because it is using 3D as a gimmick.
"But Hubilub" you cry out. "Aren't you one of the people who are opposed to 3D because it is a gimmick".
Yes, I am. But you see, the problem with 3D is that most people just use it to throw shit in your face (literally). It's a gimmick because so few people know what to do with it besides having objects flying into the camera, and so it is used as a gimmick to attempt to enhance a movie going experience.
Cameron is beyond that. He knows how 3D can be used properly, how it can be more than just things flying around. The problem is that I feel barely anyone understands his thought process, and the technology of 3D is going to be misused by people like those who made Piranha 3D, until it is eventually once more forgotten.
I think Cameron is very naive when he thinks that he can take 3D beyond where it always has been. True, he has an idea that might work great, but nobody is going to follow him. NOT because Hollywood doesn't consider any other method to use 3D safe, but because Hollywood is too stupid to realize that there are other methods to use 3D.
Don't believe me? Check out the different trailers for Resident Evil Apocalypse and count how many times things are thrown into the camera. Glasses, Swords, Axes, Shurikens, and I'll bet you a few slow-mo bullets will make it into the film, you just wait.
Cameron is not wrong, he's just fighting a battle he can't win.
I don't get this whole 3D hype AT ALL!
I have watched some movies in 3D, and yes it is fun to get depth in the movie but at the cost of darker images and worse image quality? And here I thought we strive for the opposite...
sure both of those should get better with time, but still;
There is the issue of focus. Not the general focus of the movie, but the focus you get from a camera.
In a 2D film some parts of the movie is blurred, due to both effect and how a camera works. This is all well and good in 2D and actually helps to create depth.
But the same doesn't hold true for 3D, in a 3D movie having the foreground blurred out just ands strain to the eyes.
Your eyes and a camera doesn't work in the same way, and I personally keep finding myself trying to focus on objects that are not in focus... leaving me with the well know eye strain and headache you get from a full 3D feature...
All in all I am against 3D, and I hope its only going to be a small hype like the 70s one...
I have watched some movies in 3D, and yes it is fun to get depth in the movie but at the cost of darker images and worse image quality? And here I thought we strive for the opposite...
sure both of those should get better with time, but still;
There is the issue of focus. Not the general focus of the movie, but the focus you get from a camera.
In a 2D film some parts of the movie is blurred, due to both effect and how a camera works. This is all well and good in 2D and actually helps to create depth.
But the same doesn't hold true for 3D, in a 3D movie having the foreground blurred out just ands strain to the eyes.
Your eyes and a camera doesn't work in the same way, and I personally keep finding myself trying to focus on objects that are not in focus... leaving me with the well know eye strain and headache you get from a full 3D feature...
All in all I am against 3D, and I hope its only going to be a small hype like the 70s one...
Are you serious? Cameron is beyond that? The first thirty minutes of the movie reveled in every occasion to show off their 3D technology. Hell, the fucking 20th Century Fox logo was in 3D.Hubilub said:
Yes, the 3D in the movie wasn't really that gimmicky and he didn't throw stuff at the screen, but that changes nothing because if 3D isn't gimmicky, it's barely noticeable and not really worth it. Yes, Afterlife looks much, much worse, but did the 3D in Avatar really add anything to the movie... I've seen it in 3D, it didn't look much better and the pretty pictures didn't take away the thought that I essentially was watching an empty, stupid movie. Hell, I'll go see it a second time just because I promised one Irish guy, but I doubt it'll change my mind.
But back to 3D... Cameron is not fighting any kind of fight. He just used a somewhat attractive gimmick, marketed right and got it to sell his below average, I-can't-believe-that-guy-did-Aliens-and-T2 movie.