You will be redirected back to your article in seconds
Back to IndieWire

James Cameron Says ‘Man Of Steel’ & ‘Iron Man 3’ Probably Didn’t Have To Be In 3D

James Cameron Says 'Man Of Steel' & 'Iron Man 3' Probably Didn't Have To Be In 3D

There is probably no bigger cheerleader on the planet for 3D than James Cameron, but he’s also been the loudest voice when it comes to half-hearted, unartistic use of the format. And he recently had a lot to say about 3D and moviemaking in general, sitting down with Alfonso Cuarón for a conversation at Mexico City’s technology forum TagDF on Wednesday. Why were they paired up? Well, it turns out Cameron lent Cuarón some technology assistance on his upcoming 3D space adventure “Gravity,” a movie will undoubtedly meets his approval, 3D-wise. But as for some of the other blockbusters this summer? Not so much.

“I do not think Hollywood is using the 3D properly,” he said at the conference, with Laverdad (via The Film Stage) recapping the higlights. “The reason I say that Hollywood is not doing well is because it is automatic. For example, ‘The Man of Steel,’ ‘Iron Man‘ and all those movies should not necessarily be in 3D. If you spend 150 million on visual effects, the film is already going to be spectacular, perfect.” You would think that the same logic would apply to Cameron’s already expensive “Avatar,” but it was shot in 3D, whereas the superhero flicks were conversion jobs, and that’s where the difference lies.

“One thing is shooting in 3D and another to convert to 3D. After ‘Avatar’ changed everything, good and bad movies, everything has to be in 3D since ‘Avatar.’ The problem I see now is that instead of it being a filmmaker issue is a matter of the studios to make money and are pushing 3D to directors who are not comfortable or do not like 3D,” Cameron elaborated. 

But hypocrisy and ego or not, Cameron isn’t wrong — both “Man Of Steel” and “Iron Man 3” weren’t particularly made better by 3D. But the big question is what is Cameron going to do with the format and special effects in the developing “Avatar” sequels to push the envelope again? Well, he isn’t aiming to top himself in that department exactly. “…we are not going to invent a new 3D or (new system of) CG. We’re going to go a little more to strive for creativity,” he said.

And what’s after those “Avatar” movies? Well, Cameron is still going on about making “Battle Angel,” which he says will start moving in earnest in 2017, and will be about “trans-humans” or something. We think 2017 is an optimistic time frame, but sure, we’ll go along with that for now. Anyway, check out an excerpt from the Cameron/Cuarón chat below. 

This Article is related to: News and tagged , , , , ,



So the guy that co-owns a company that makes and sells 3D filming equipment is saying that maybe people should be filming natively instead of converting? Big surprise. My argument would be that no film necessarily needs to be in 3D but then again I don't have a product I'm trying to force down movie theatres' and the industries throats.

The major reason behind the conversions currently (beyond it being cheaper and giving the filmmakers more of an ability to shoot the film they want to shoot): Those films couldn't get into China without being in 3D.


Wow. Talk about a big ego. I like his movies but he is far from being the top film maker out there.

Voice of Reason

"Well, he isn't aiming to top himself in that department exactly. "…we are not going to invent a new 3D or (new system of) CG. We're going to go a little more to strive for creativity," he said."

I'm tired of the implications that Cameron invented these technologies in the first place. CG, motion capture and 3D stereo were around long before he dipped his toe in the pool. Just sayin'!

a guy named joe

Some of you guys really need to separate your apparent hatred of Cameron and the wisdom of his comments. He is 100% correct–the vast majority of 3D in Hollywood is "unnecessary" and is purely to boost grosses. 3D post conversion is a scourge.


Sure Cameron is right that 3D is too much but just because he made a movie with a shitty story and inovative 3D doesn't give him "3D King" status…..Avatar is overrated trash.


Um, no, Avatar was the first ever movie to use 3D properly and to make common use of it. No, it was not converted.


I agree with him partially,there're too much 3d films these days which aren't necessarily made in 3d.

Alan B

Cameron is a hypocrite because he has argued that 3D films should be a filmmakers' choice and should be an organic part of the visual language? Yeah, because Fox forced 3D on 'Avatar' and he didn't design the film as 3d. Wasn't it a last minute post-conversion?


I just want Cuaron to go back to making movies like Y Tu Mama Tambien and Solo con tu pareja.


3d is a awful gimick that has gotten out of hand. Lets focus on plot and storytelling instead.


This dude needs to STFU about 3D.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *