Posted on Monday, August 16th, 2010 by David Chen
In the most recent issue of Entertainment Weekly, James Cameron makes several remarks about The Hurt Locker, directed by ex-wife and Oscar winner Kathryn Bigelow. Of particular interest was his claim that The Hurt Locker, amongst others, would have been better in 3D.
This quote comes courtesy of The Playlist, who were able to snag their copy of EW before me this week:
I think [The Hurt Locker] would have been better in 3D. Absolutely. It wouldn’t have been hugely better in 3D, but I’m talking a future where you don’t have to put ‘in 3D’ on the movie poster anymore, the same way you don’t put ‘in color’ on posters anymore.
The implication here is that most movies would be improved, however subtly, with a 3D presentation, and that 3D will soon become a de facto cinematic standard. However, I’m still far from convinced that Cameron’s vision of the future will come to pass. Sure, Avatar helped usher in an era of newfound excitement for new 3D technologies, as well as the massive profits that 3D films could drive. But studios proceeded to do what they have done with every great new trend: run it completely into the ground.
With hasty upconversions of films such as Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender, studios burned up a lot of the good will they had built up. When the consensus, critical and otherwise, is that people should skip the 3D presentation of your film and watch it in 2D instead, you’ve screwed up somewhere along the line. I’m hoping that studio executives saw how crowds at Comic-Con this year went wild upon the announcement that Cowboys and Aliens will be in 2D only, and will take it as a sign that they need to develop a more intricate strategy for 3D beyond “Upconvert every major tentpole blockbuster film.”
What do you guys think? Would The Hurt Locker have been improved with a 3D presentation? And what do you make of the future of 3D at the movies?Cool Posts From Around the Web: