James Cameron calls Oculus Rift a "Yawn", where moviemaking is involved.

[kemcha]

I didn't know where to place this topic, so bear with me for a moment.

Every time James Cameron speaks, it simply makes me gag. When the producers of Piranha 3D were making the film, Cameron came out and blasted the producers because he personally believed that the 3D process should only be used for what he called "event" movies. The crap he spewed forth made it sound like HE invented the 3D process, which was laughable since the 3D technology has been around for a lot longer than he's been an imprint on the face of the planet.

Well, James Cameron is at it again, this time blasting away at Oculus Rift, claiming that the technology is a major yawn.

I'd like to know just how James Cameron thinks that people actually listen to the crap he spews. The man's ego is larger than the solar system we live in. Virtual reality movie viewing is the next logical leap and since Oculus Rift is a relatively new technology when it comes to film-making, it's the most logical step for producers to start taking advantage of that technology.

http://www.slashfilm.com/james-cameron-oculus-rift/

While I agree with the article that it has more impact with the videogame industry than with the movie industry, there are some benefits to movie producers to start experimenting with the new technology. I guess according to James Cameron, Oculus Rift doesn't suck if he's the only director using it.

[GLaDOS]

"There seems to be a lot of excitement around something that, to me, is a yawn, frankly."

So is 3D, Jim, but that's none of my business.

[Thomas Guycott]

The core concept of the Oculus platform is reintroducing virtual reality to popular audiences in a relatively inexpensive package, now that technology has caught up compared to its initial failure in the early 90s. I agree that it's main focus is gaming--where it really has a enormous potential--and other applications, but there is definitely some headway which could be made in the realm of interactive fiction and immersive storytelling.

It sounds like Cameron is dismissing the technology because it's still in its infancy and he's too nearsighted to its potential growth. But this is the guy who's likely throwing the last remaining decade of his career under the bus which is Avatar, so...

[NARMAK]

On a technical level, VR for movies is a pretty daunting idea if the expectation or aim is to create a fully mapped 360 degree view within the experience. In traditional movies, in order to get the right composition etc. there are SO MANY things going on off camera that you would find it nigh on impossible to film without and hence why 360 degrees VR is such a bad proposition.

We've already seen 3D adoption face a backlash even with improvements and stagnate. VR would arguably do even worse, and the experience whilst possible to be neat in some instances done in a certain way is for all intents and purposes a gimmick.

If you actually look at which medium is conducive to VR; it's always been gaming. That's because the virtual world doesn't requires lighting, cameras, stuntmen etc. like movies do.

There is perhaps a few instances where I see animated movies being able to take advantage of VR but in traditional movies, no way jose. Maybe if CGI ever gets photo realistic enough I can imagine a situation where a VR implementation can work.

VR is at best destined to be a very fringe and/or niche for the foreseeable future where the traditional movie medium is concerned and I think the mainstream is rather fine with the status quo but would appreciate as high a fidelity PQ & AQ from their 2D viewings in cinema or home.

[kemcha]

I have to agree about these 'niche' technologies like 3D and VR but Cameron seems hellbent on trashing anyone making any claims to new technologies regarding moviemaking unless he's the one doing that. James Cameron is acting like an egotistical, arrogant jerk about this and he needs to learn to shut his mouth about it.

While he has directed and produced some great films such as the Terminator films, Abyss and Avatar ... he hasn't really been involved in too many films. You don't see anyone else talking about these new technologies like they were on some kind of ego trip. James Cameron seems to love inflating his own ego and he needs to learn to stop making dumb comments.

I imagine that ten years from now, he'll make some idiotic remark that VR should only be used for 'event movies', like he said with 3D. The man is a moron. I'm actually wondering why anyone even listens to him anymore or if they just laugh at him for making such dumb remarks.

[Optimus]

"James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron." - James Cameron

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by kemcha

I have to agree about these 'niche' technologies like 3D and VR but Cameron seems hellbent on trashing anyone making any claims to new technologies regarding moviemaking unless he's the one doing that. James Cameron is acting like an egotistical, arrogant jerk about this and he needs to learn to shut his mouth about it.

While he has directed and produced some great films such as the Terminator films, Abyss and Avatar ... he hasn't really been involved in too many films. You don't see anyone else talking about these new technologies like they were on some kind of ego trip. James Cameron seems to love inflating his own ego and he needs to learn to stop making dumb comments.

I imagine that ten years from now, he'll make some idiotic remark that VR should only be used for 'event movies', like he said with 3D. The man is a moron. I'm actually wondering why anyone even listens to him anymore or if they just laugh at him for making such dumb remarks.

VR isn't here yet so let's not label it 'niche' yet?

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

On a technical level, VR for movies is a pretty daunting idea if the expectation or aim is to create a fully mapped 360 degree view within the experience. In traditional movies, in order to get the right composition etc. there are SO MANY things going on off camera that you would find it nigh on impossible to film without and hence why 360 degrees VR is such a bad proposition.

We've already seen 3D adoption face a backlash even with improvements and stagnate. VR would arguably do even worse, and the experience whilst possible to be neat in some instances done in a certain way is for all intents and purposes a gimmick.

If you actually look at which medium is conducive to VR; it's always been gaming. That's because the virtual world doesn't requires lighting, cameras, stuntmen etc. like movies do.

There is perhaps a few instances where I see animated movies being able to take advantage of VR but in traditional movies, no way jose. Maybe if CGI ever gets photo realistic enough I can imagine a situation where a VR implementation can work.

VR is at best destined to be a very fringe and/or niche for the foreseeable future where the traditional movie medium is concerned and I think the mainstream is rather fine with the status quo but would appreciate as high a fidelity PQ & AQ from their 2D viewings in cinema or home.

+1,000. You'd think they'd learn with the 3D fiasco - or shall we say complete lack of interest and miniscule home adoption. I think most of us just want to sit down and watch our favorite movies like we always have. Give us the best image and sound quality you possibly can and we are good with that & will pay for it. We dont need to be "in" the movie. We dont need arrows or pirhanas flying at our face. We dont want to put glasses on or strap things to our head. Enough.

Just wanna watch the damned movie, ya know?

Ironically - image quality has taken a back seat to all the other BS. Plasma dying off just set image quality back 10 years, IMO. Instaed of making sure these TVs can connect to Facebook properly, how about getting the black levels right or hadling motion properly? Geesh.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by kemcha

When the producers of Piranha 3D were making the film, Cameron came out and blasted the producers because he personally believed that the 3D process should only be used for what he called "event" movies. The crap he spewed forth made it sound like HE invented the 3D process, which was laughable since the 3D technology has been around for a lot longer than he's been an imprint on the face of the planet.

We get lots of people here complaining about poor 3D post-conversions, but apparently Cameron is the bad guy for pointing out that this doesn't do the format any favours ? And he was right, you will find 3D only with big event movies because it didn't take off with smaller films like Piranha 3D.

That something like Oculus Rift is more suited to gaming than to films strikes me as pretty obvious. To drive a story forward film-makers have to guide your view. There is a reason why the cinematic vocabulary consists of things like composition and editing, two things which would go out of the window if you blundered around the narrative yourself. I can see people wandering around some fantasy landscape like Myst, etc but that would still be a game rather than a film.

I've been to interactive theatre pieces by the British company Punch Drunk and they are good fun. The last one The Drowned Man took place in a huge warehouse over several floors and groups of actors were moving all round the building with their own narratives which you could follow. But it didn't really work as story telling, the most fun was in exploring the environment where every square inch was art directed full of props and rooms to explore. That's what i would imagine an interactive "film" would be like. A great space, but not much of a story.

[kemcha]

It's not complaints about poor conversion that I'm outlining here, it's James Cameron's sheer arrogance and his ever expanding ego that I'm talking about here. Poor conversion is something that should be covered by tech bloggers and reviewers, not directors and producers who think their vision is the only one that matters.

Cameron seems to be under the mistaken belief that since his movie made a lot of money that everyone respects what he says. That's just not true and he's making himself look like an arrogant prima-donna who seems to be throwing a temper tantrum. What I got from his remarks? "I don't like Oculus Rift or VR because I did not create it" seems to be what Cameron seems to be putting out there.

[Geoff D]

As James Cameron once said to a lowly underling: "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you".

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by kemcha

It's not complaints about poor conversion that I'm outlining here, it's James Cameron's sheer arrogance and his ever expanding ego that I'm talking about here. Poor conversion is something that should be covered by tech bloggers and reviewers, not directors and producers who think their vision is the only one that matters.

Cameron seems to be under the mistaken belief that since his movie made a lot of money that everyone respects what he says. That's just not true and he's making himself look like an arrogant prima-donna who seems to be throwing a temper tantrum. What I got from his remarks? "I don't like Oculus Rift or VR because I did not create it" seems to be what Cameron seems to be putting out there.

Most of what Cameron has to say on film-technology makes sense to me. I think you have bought a little too much into the whole thing about his ego and trashing that aspect of him seems more important than a sensible discussion about technology to you, as that's what you are focusing on again.

He has a big ego and everybody knows he is a total pain to work with. He is also a meticulous perfectionist and he knows what he is talking about and expects others to live up to his standards. He is someone who has pushed film technology forward in his work several times now, so I think he has earned the right to speak out about cutting edge technology and its use in film. To call him an "arrogant prime donna" for that strikes me as OTT and not really correct. He is not making unreasonably demands to boost his ego, he is speaking out on the aesthetics of film. As do plenty of other film-makers who could be described as visionary (Kubrick on film preservation and projection, Tarantino on digital film vs celluloid) If he riles you up so much, maybe just put him on ignore.

[AudioWarrior]

Wake me up till you make another good movie, or finally get the rights to Terminator, because we all know how much that franchise needs fixing!

[Kevin Holly]

Originally Posted by kemcha

Every time James Cameron speaks, it simply makes me gag. When the producers of Piranha 3D were making the film, Cameron came out and blasted the producers because he personally believed that the 3D process should only be used for what he called "event" movies.

Yep, he may have spent his childhood twenty minutes away from my own home, but that doesn't make this comment any more backwards and asinine.

It's literally exactly wrong: The limited time when 3D is of any value is for gimmicky horror/action movies with sh!t flying at the camera and whatnot. Piranha 3D and My Bloody Valentine 3D and Drive Angry 3D are really the only three 3D movies of the latest crop (and two of them are from the same director, incidentally also Canadian) that actually used 3D effectively and (maybe.... just maybe....) justified the extra ticket price.

Movies like Avatar, on the other hand, big, sweeping, epics ("event" movie is a bit of perjorative, so I'm not even sure why he used this term, to be quite honest) are the antithesis of what a 3D movie should be. A movie like that should be able to stand on its own two feet without resorting to cheap gimmickry.

[kemcha]

Don't get me wrong. James Cameron is an excellent director and producer but I think his comments about new film technology are arrogant and asinine. I didn't realize just how arrogant he actually was until he made that arrogant comments about the producers of Piranha 3D and their decision to use the 3D technology. Personally, I think he was arrogant and egotistical, making it sound like nobody should use the technology unless it was him.

To be honest, I never pay attention to anything he says and I actually forgot about that interview he gave where he came out and blasted the producers and directors of Piranha 3D. Then, I read that article over at Slashfilm and I couldn't believe the sheer stupidity and arrogance of the man to make such a comment.

The technology for movies and television shows has been a constantly evolving process since the late 1800's, when the first movie was produced in the 1890's. Movie production went from black and white film stock to color, from standard definition to digital and then on to HD. Even special effects technology was evolved.

If James Cameron is so interested in new film technologies, then he needs to stop taking 10 years making a single movie and get into creating new technologies. Oh, I forgot, James Cameron doesn't create anything, he's only involved in scriptwriting, directing and producing. He doesn't actually create anything for the movie industry that could be considered revolutionary.

While Cameron has a few good points, the man is arrogant. You would think that before Avatar came along, that the 3D technology never existed. I think, eventually, and at some point, movie producers and directors will start taking advantage of Oculus Rift and VR but that it's still a relatively new technology and OR is simply too new to even think about where the technology will go, where it concerns movie production.

[iank]

As much as a fan as I once was of him, when was the last time he made a really good film? 1994? I think he's past it, frankly.

And after Avatar, he's certainly got a cheek calling anything else a "yawn".

[aiman04]

I call Avatar sequels a "Yawn".

You can't even give us The Abysss and True Lies on HD.

[travOtaku]

What exactly would Oculus Rift bring to the filmmaking/viewing experience, anyway?

What's the controversy here, exactly? That a filmmaker is expressing his opinion that VR has no exciting applications for filmmaking? If Christopher Nolan said this would you still post this article? What if David Fincher had?

All I see in your posts is: "I found this article that justifies (barely) a rant I can spew about James Cameron because I can't stand him."

It isn't much of an issue to me, either, that he criticized other studios for utilizing 3D in a way that was clearly for a cash grab. You can't tell me that you saw Piranha 3D and thought "Wow, this is reference quality 3D and totally utilized as a means to further engage me as an audience member for the sake of the storytelling."

As generic as Avatar's story was... I haven't experienced much since seeing Avatar in (true) IMAX 3D that left me feeling so integrated in the setting of the movie. Some of the shots were awe-inspiring to me and left quite an impact. I felt more invested at some points because I had a deeper connection with what was going on because it felt like it was going on AROUND me and not just in front of me. It was really very engaging and quite incredible.

If 3D was only available as an option for a movie that utilized it to expand upon the scope of the picture by making it a more engaging experience then great. If it is just utilized to expand the box office totals for the movie then I say James Cameron as every right to criticize them for it. I'll criticize them for it too.

For every Avatar and Gravity (game changing 3D experiences) we get 100 Piranha 3D or Shark Night 3D, and I think it is because people see it as a gimmick they can use to bolster ticket sales and not something that can seriously make their movie better.

[kemcha]

Avatar is a decent enough film but the fact is, Cameron spent 10+ years making that movie. When a movie takes 10+ years to make, it's time to trash the movie and move on. Cameron simply is NOT respected because of the fact that he runs off at the mouth.

When it comes to directors that are respected, Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Joss Whedon, Frank Durabont ... these are respected directors who actually make films on a regular basis. Cameron? He makes a movie every ten years or so.

[StingingVelvet]

I still check gaming news once in a while despite rarely gaming anymore. The Rift honestly sounds like a flash-in-the-pan for me because I don't see people ever wanting to wear headgear to play a video game (or watch a movie). Every time a product comes along that requires wearing headgear it ends up being a fad.

Just my perspective, obviously.