James Cameron Says 'MAN OF STEEL' And 'IRON MAN 3' Didn't Need 3D

James Cameron says he'll devote his time to "Battle Angel Alita" in 2017 while speaking at the technology festival, TagDF. He also discusses his "Avatar" sequels and comments that "Man of Steel" and "Iron Man 3" didn't need to be in 3D.

Follow Mark:
By Mark Julian - 7/6/2013
Attending Mexico City's TagDF, director James Cameron states that he'll begin production work on his long (LONG) awaited "Battle Angel Alita" adaptation in 2017 which is presumably when he'll be all finished with "Avatar 3." Speaking on "Avatar," Cameron stated that he's moved on from trying to push technology forward with the sequels and that he's instead focusing on the story and characters. Sticking to the festivals theme of technology, Cameron also commented on Hollywood's current infatuation with 3D films. Said the director, "One thing is shooting in 3D and another is to convert to 3D." He acknowledged that the first "Avatar" changed everything but now, the technology and the decision is being taken out of the hands of filmmakers and being placed into the hands of the money-grubbing film studio executives. He also states that films such as "Man of Steel" and "Iron Man 3" didn't need 3D as, "If you spend $150 million on visual effects, the film is already going to [look] spectacular [and] perfect." There's much more in-depth statments and answers from Cameron below in the video.

[via The Film Stage]



RELATED CONTENT:
The Weinstein Co. Secures International Rights To KITE Starring Samuel L. Jackson And India Eisley
'DEATH NOTE' Actor Tatsuya Fujiwara Cast In 'RUROUNI KENSHIN' Sequel Films



Source: Laverdad
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
4
LIKE!
141 Comments
1 2 3 4
BANEofExistence - 7/6/2013, 7:21 AM
they didn't need 3D? Neither did Avatar. NO FILM DOES! Look at the Batman trilogy, Inceptoion. no 3d still huge success. 3D is an overrated, overused concept but ya Man of steel, iron man 3 etc... had cool concepts of 3d. Lets see you pull off this shitty trilogy Avatr
Whiteandgold - 7/6/2013, 7:28 AM
Cant wait to see how james cameron will pull off back to back movies.
ndwwrestler2 - 7/6/2013, 7:28 AM
I have absolutely no problem with 3d...except that it seems to cost more than 2d.
ndwwrestler2 - 7/6/2013, 7:29 AM
Avatar was good, but it wasn't his masterpiece. Aliens is my favorite Cameron movie.
Sophisticated - 7/6/2013, 7:29 AM
Avatar bloobs
Happy11 - 7/6/2013, 7:31 AM
Films that have been converted to 3d look shit at the cinema especially if the scene is dark or at night.
kazumama - 7/6/2013, 7:37 AM
James Cameron was right, people that disagree with him sure totally wrong cause nobody can compare and do a great movie that can overpass him due his knowledge and experience. ..most important is that he just know what audiences wanna see...I totally solute and agree with him...when Battle Angel come out it will sure become the greatest and most spectacular sci-fi action movie ever made..can't wait to see that..
marvel72 - 7/6/2013, 7:48 AM
avatar is a good movie,i can't see why it gets so much hate,i've seen a lot worse than avatar.

& as for 3D guess what you don't have to watch a movie in 3D but it does help movies hit the big numbers,i don't know by how much when you compare the box office takings of iron man 3 & man of steel there is a big difference.
jessepostal - 7/6/2013, 7:49 AM
Simplicity sells. Why do you think the same story's are repeated again and again. Avatar may be recycled but it's prob the most beautiful looking 3d picture ever, and prob for a few more years. Titanic comes close, and guess who's name is on tht one too :)
maryboo - 7/6/2013, 7:52 AM
Most movies released in 3D don't need 3D.
They're just released that way to make more money and unfortunately people end up paying more for it because most theaters offer nothing but 3D showings and only like 2 or 3 regular 2D showings.
SpectacularJoShFest - 7/6/2013, 7:54 AM
I saw MOS in 2D and IM3 in 3D, I've got to say,no movie actually needs 3D,but the plane scene in IM3 looked FANTASTIC in 3D.
JMESS - 7/6/2013, 7:57 AM
this is the same guy who re-released Titanic in 3d right?
jessepostal - 7/6/2013, 8:02 AM
Did you see titanic 3d?? No other conversion comes close.
marvel54 - 7/6/2013, 8:03 AM
JMESS james cameron epic fail
RG7620 - 7/6/2013, 8:19 AM
"Long awaited Battle Angel Alita" What is this? o.O
ATrueHero1987 - 7/6/2013, 8:20 AM
Both movies, the 3D was almost non existent...
eddyxx - 7/6/2013, 8:20 AM
I used to like James Cameron but in the last 16 years he has become a lazy and arrogant mother[frick]er. Everything you touch is not gold Cameron. Look at the tv show 'Dark Angel', the show was trash. He got lucky twice to capture the zeitgeist. Avatar 2 will not be as big as the first one. And thats if he ever even makes it. Maybe it'll come out in 2020. He'll be dead before he makes the Battle Angel movie.
eddyxx - 7/6/2013, 8:20 AM
I've been reading about the Battle Angel movie since 2003, it'll never happen.
GodzillaKart - 7/6/2013, 8:23 AM
No movie needs shaky cam.
TyrantBoss - 7/6/2013, 8:24 AM
It's amazing how Cameron has changed his tune since he stood on a stage with Lucas and bragged on 3D and how it would keep people from pirating movies.
marvel72 - 7/6/2013, 8:26 AM
@ godzillafart

exactly,worse part of man of steel.
gambgel - 7/6/2013, 8:28 AM
A universe like the Superman one, with all the possibilities of Kripton, 3D could be a good adittion.

But Ironman definetly doesnt need 3D.
MrCBM56 - 7/6/2013, 8:31 AM
People act like 3d is not a choice. If you don't like it. Don't see it in that format.

Obviously 3d is used to grab more money in, but people forget that film making is a buisness. It's not a hobby. You don't just do it for fun. While a lot of directors do strive to put out great movies, at the end of the day they and the Rest of the crew is getting a big fat pay check.

And James Cameron saying those films didnt need 3d. This is coming from a guy who re-released Titanic in 3d to get more money.
MrCBM56 - 7/6/2013, 8:32 AM
Gambgel

First of all, Krypton is destroyed. Second of all, while superman is FUN to watch in 3d, you don't need it in 3d
ATrueHero1987 - 7/6/2013, 8:34 AM
@gambgel that's the case, I can't imagine what The Wolverine "needs" 3D for...but who knows.

The only movie I saw this year that made good use of 3D was GI Joe: Retaliation.
fettastic - 7/6/2013, 8:38 AM
"If you spend $150 million on visual effects, the film is already going to [look] spectacular [and] perfect."

So Avatar didn't need 3D?

It's not that Man of Steel and Iron Man 3 didn't "need" 3D, it was that it was barely noticeable in both instances.

I'm sure both will look better on 3DBD. However in the case of Iron Man 3, I'll never know, because I will never subject myself to that film again.
AlternateNo4 - 7/6/2013, 8:45 AM
come on, it's not complicated. cameron is right. movies that use 3d for ACTION scenes are ok i guess but it isn't NEEDED for the story. but in avatar, the 3d wasn't there to make gee-whiz fight scenes but to impart a sense of SCALE to the vast natural world on pandora.

i remember reading that if you saw it in imax, the birdy-riding part provided the sensation of seeing about three miles away... when they walked on tree branches, the forest floor was 300 feet down. THAT's why avatar "needed" 3d, because you couldn't grasp the majesty of nature without it... and the environmental message was the movie's soul.
Brainiac13 - 7/6/2013, 8:53 AM
I hated the 3D on MOS! I saw it 1 in 3D and 3 times in 2d
sameoldthing - 7/6/2013, 8:54 AM
Cameron is a very smart man & a solid director.
I have now seen dozens of movies in 3D..only Avatar looked really good in that format.

Hopefully the next movies in Avatar franchise have more original plot.
Guarantee they will look fantastic.
kisama - 7/6/2013, 8:57 AM
no movie should need 3d
Maia87 - 7/6/2013, 9:00 AM
SHUT UP CAMERON. Avatar didn't need 3D and changed nothing at all.
spider1489 - 7/6/2013, 9:03 AM
http://youtu.be/u4FwSzyd4e8
pud333 - 7/6/2013, 9:06 AM
And the sky is blue.

We all know it is just a money grab. What has been frustrating for me, is that while I loved Man of Steel, it has been an absolute pain to find a theater showing it in 2D at a reasonable time. I'd already seen it in 3D a few times but every time I want to see it in 2D, the shows are at silly times during the afternoon, like 2 pm on a work day. It's only now they are playing it in 2D in the evening. I mean, I get it. But it's still frustrating when you know the movie wasn't filmed in 3D and all you want to do is watch it the original way it was made.
SAZMD - 7/6/2013, 9:06 AM
He's not wrong in regards to Man of Steel. Saw MOS in regular 2D, IMAX 2D and IMAX 3D, and the IMAX 2D was the best of the bunch.
MasterAlex - 7/6/2013, 9:06 AM
Only the computer-animated movies like those from Pixar or Despicable Me need 3D, those movies look fantastic and are very fun to watch in 3D.
Although, I do want to see Pacific Rim in 3D.
ruadh - 7/6/2013, 9:17 AM
@MrCBM56
"Obviously 3d is used to grab more money in, but people forget that film making is a buisness. It's not a hobby. You don't just do it for fun. While a lot of directors do strive to put out great movies, at the end of the day they and the Rest of the crew is getting a big fat pay check."

I think this is a really important point a lot of posters on this site seem unable to grasp. I am guessing it's due to how many young people visit here. But like when people criticize George Lucas for wanting to make money...he's ALWAYS been that way, and good at it. Retaining the merch rights for Star Wars. Or when he told Scorsese to change the ending of New York,New York and he'd make $20 million more. Some people just have a head for that, but they turn out some great art along the way as well.
MarvelWeiner - 7/6/2013, 9:17 AM
I agree with cam
SpideyQuad - 7/6/2013, 9:19 AM
I'm sure over 80% of the 3-D movies were not necessary. I've yet to see one from this generation. Getting a massive headache back in the 70s was enough for me.
thunderforce - 7/6/2013, 9:24 AM
He is right as always and if you want to compare then go see Pacific Rim next week , I think it was filmed in 3d and not converted .
jerryblake - 7/6/2013, 9:27 AM
Iron Man 3 (as well as Thor) didn't need 3D. Post 3D conversion was awful. During the Tony's house attack scene I couldn't see a god damn thing. Same thing with Tony vs Szostak fight scene.

I'm not a big fan of 3D, but I won't bash it either.
Avatar looked great in 3D, The Amazing Spiderman too.
Same thing with Transformers 3.

I can pay for 3D IF IT'S WORTH THE PRICE.
1 2 3 4

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.