James Cameron hates to do it, but throws 'Piranha 3D' under the bus

'Avatar' maestro says these aren't the kinds of films Hollywood should be making

A scene from Piranha 3-D

A scene from "Piranha 3D."

Credit: Weinstein Company

In the long and impressive cinematic history of James Cameron, there is one film he refuses to put on his resume but is reminded of every so often: "Piranha 2."  The young auteur was hired to direct the sequel years before he made the landmark "Terminator" in 1984, but was fired after only a few days of work.  Not enough for a credit in the "Titanic" creator's mind.  Now, with "Piranha 3-D" in theaters and purposely shot in the immersive medium Cameron has rejuvenated with "Avatar," the subject of the killer fish and their potential for cinematic mayhem has reached the visionary once more.  Needless to say, he's hardly a fan.

Speaking to Vanity Fair, Cameron bluntly said, "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 3-D. Because it just cheapens the medium and reminds you of the bad 3-D horror films from the 70s and 80s, like Friday the 13th 3-D. When movies got to the bottom of the barrel of their creativity and at the last gasp of their financial lifespan, they did a 3-D version to get the last few drops of blood out of the turnip. And that’s not what’s happening now with 3-D."

Want More...

Avatar?
  • Avatar_thumbnail
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.
Cameron went on to note the medium is in a "renaissance" right now. 

"[The] biggest and the best films are being made in 3-D," the Oscar winner told the magazine. "Martin Scorsese is making a film in 3-D. Disney’s biggest film of the year—'Tron: Legacy' —is coming out in 3-D. So it’s a whole new ballgame."

The filmmaker has been on something of a media blitz the past few weeks in anticipation of the re-release of "Avatar" this past weekend.  Unfortunately, the demand for the blockbuster's return wasn't what either he or 20th Century Fox expected.  In just 881 3-D and IMAX theaters, "Avatar" grossed $4 million which put it outside of the top ten movies at the weekend box office.  With $2.751 billion in worldwide theatrical revenue alone, neither party is crying over the result. 

For more on Cameron's thoughts on the "Avatar" re-release, check out his exclusive interview with HitFix's Drew McWeeny below.


Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Gavin Strange that he would say that. Piranha 3D was far more entertaining than Avatar.

    August 30, 2010 at 3:06AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Pinky Ew. What a seemingly whiny, unwarranted, comment on a film. Sure, I'm not rushing out to go see Piranha 3D (it's not really my kind of movie) but I'm not going to pretend that 3D is only for "the biggest and best films". If people want to watch a cheesy bloody horror throwback like this in 3D, its their choice.
    In this, James Cameron comes across as a kid who is upset that someone is doing something similar to him, crying about how he does it better so other people he doesn't consider at his level shouldn't be allowed to do it. It's close-minded, egotistical, and petty.
    Mr. Cameron: You made billions of dollars, let some other people have some fun if they want. It's not your place to tell them they shouldn't or call it cheap just because it doesn't fit into your idea of what the medium should be.

    On a more personal note: I would never categorize Avatar as part of a "renaissance". It was fun and a great showcase of the technology, but it was garbage storytelling. You can have the greatest effects in the world, but if the story is poor, then the 3D just helps make it look prettier and nothing else. Oh, and I thought Coraline's 3D was better.

    Sorry for the rant.

    August 30, 2010 at 3:25AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Dave 3D is a gimmick and in the case of piranha 3d... it works. Its the big movies who are cashing in by adding in the 3d element... Piranhas was made to be 3d. Its the bigger movies that need to focus on story not 3D.

    August 30, 2010 at 3:38AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    stephen I find that 3D only works when it comes to cheesy and over the top movies. Using it in "normal" movies doesn't seem to work. Just Avatar and even then I can watch it on video and not miss the 3D at all. (Especially with how amazing it looks in HiDef.)

    August 30, 2010 at 7:41AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Max He really can't get over the fact that 3-D is a gimmick that BELONGS in these kinds of movies, can he? I also notice that Cameron seems to think that 'highest grossing' equals 'best' and it doesn't. "Avatar" was a lot of things, but a great film sure as hell wasn't one of them. It was a great home theater test film, but that's about all. Cameron should keep is fucking big mouth shut until he manages to combine the FX with something a little more substantial than the marshmallow fluff of "Avatar".

    August 30, 2010 at 8:51AM EST Reply to Comment
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook