Wednesday, 1 September 2010

Hollywood Babble On & On #587: Jimmy, Nobody Likes A Douchebag

Welcome to the show folks...

A day without James Cameron opening his mouth to change feet is a day without sunshine. I wasn't going to comment on his latest feud, but it's a slow news day and I'm hot and grumpy. Here's what Cameron said:
“You’ve got to remember: I worked on ‘Piranha 2’ for a few days and got fired off of it; I don’t put it on my official filmography. So there’s no sort of fond connection for me whatsoever. In fact, I would go even farther and say that … I tend almost never to throw other films under the bus, but that is exactly an example of what we should not be doing in 3D. Because it just cheapens the medium and reminds you of the bad 3D horror films from the 70s and 80s, like ‘Friday the 13th 3D.’ When movies got to the bottom of the barrel of their creativity and at the last gasp of their financial lifespan, they did a 3D version to get the last few drops of blood out of the turnip. And that’s not what’s happening now with 3D. It is a renaissance – right now the biggest and the best films are being made in 3D. Martin Scorsese is making a film in 3D. Disney’s biggest film of the year – ‘Tron: Legacy’ – is coming out in 3D. So it’s a whole new ballgame.”
Now I know James Cameron's money fueled delusions of grandeur made him say this. He made a movie with new technology, it made a shit-load of money, and now he's grumping that someone made something banal using his glorious creation.

So what?

3D is by definition both a desperate plea for attention, and an opportunity to hike up ticket prices. It's only natural that movies that aren't as highbrow as sci-fi remakes of Pocahontas are going to be made.

I say again to Mr. Cameron.

So fucking what?

Now let us look back at his recent Magnum Opus, the raison d'etre for this whole 3D craze, Cameron's film Avatar.

It made billions at the box office, and was expected to make hundreds of millions more at the box office upon its recent re-release.

Only it didn't.

In fact, the re-release did worse than Scott Pilgrim VS The World.

Why is that?

Well, when it was first released it was an eye-popping 3D thrill ride that had never been seen before. People saw it in the theaters multiple times, then bought the bare bones DVD when it was first released.

Then I suspect they watched it in their homes.

Without 3D.

Then they said things like "Where's the story?" "Why are the characters all made of cardboard?" "Why is the slang out of the 1990s?"

Then they hear that it's being re-released with a few extra snippets, and they then say things like: "I'm not falling for that again."

You see, 3D is pretty much the only reason his film made so much money. But once the novelty of the SFX and 3D wears off, the thrill is gone and so is the audience.


  1. Dirty Dingus sezs:

    camoron jumped the shark with his titanic bellow and his still swimming with them~

    george lunkhead at least waited for a decade or so before shining up (and FUBARing it all up) his three magnum opuses! camoron didn't even wait a Year!!

  2. Blast Hardcheese2/9/10 11:22 am

    The thing that's bugged me about Avatar from day one:

    Why $500 mil to make?

    'Titanic' had big sets and stuff, and Leo/Kate probably ain't cheap, so I could see (maybe) a $150 mil budget for that.

    But $500 mil? 80% of the movie was done in the computer, and the other 20% in front of a green screen. And the R&D to develop the 3D technology couldn't have been -that- expensive, even w/ a 10-year development time. No big name stars (sorry, Sigourney!) to pay off. So why the big price tag?

  3. Dirty Dingus sezs:

    read this link:

    And see how 'Lara Croft 1' was paid for. It doesn't answer your question, but it did give a insight in the making of films these days.

  4. This makes me think that Avatar 2 will BOMB. Because without the 3D or bigscreen sci-fi CGI spectacles are not as good on the small screen at home. Because with out the huge screen and 3d blowing out your brain, you start to notice the movies other flaws like acting and story.

    Cameron has a point, 3D films tend to be schlock fests and they were used to make a quick buck out of overdone franchises. Hollywood si ising 3D like ti did in teh 1950;s to compete with TV. Right now they are getting their asses kicked by, DVD, Netflix, redbox and Xbox 360 for peoples entertainment dollars. Then add in internet piracy.

    So far there are more games coming out that look more interesting that the latest slew of films