James Cameron: "3D Will Replace 2D in Less Than 25 Years"
If James Cameron's vision of the future becomes reality, I'm going to be living a technology-free existence in 3-25 years.
SFGate reports that
James Cameron zipped off to Seoul, South Korea last week to speak at the Seoul Digital Forum. In his speech, he said that 3D would replace 2D as the standard in less than 25 years, and he wasn't referring only to cinema, but also to sports and music shows on TVs and laptops. He's, of course, the guy to talk to because
Avatar made so much money and was not "just a fad but a revolution." I'm not so sure that I agree, but Cameron says: "Quite simply, where they had a choice, the audience was selecting for the best possible way to see the movie. And they saw 3D as the premium viewing experience." One must assume that he's referring to all of the recent 3D choices, and not just
Avatar, since the latter came with the widespread message of see it in 3D or don't bother.
Cameron notes that the big hurdle right now is the content gap: "If you play all the 3D movies in existence on your fancy new 3D TV, it will keep you entertained for about 3 days." SFGate writes: "Cameron also said he intends to personally dedicate himself to helping the industry adopt 3D without creating a consumer backlash." This opinion of upping 3D content is an interesting counterpoint to
the director's recent comments about the rush to 3D. He said: "The problem is these decisions should be made by filmmakers, they shouldn't be made by studios, because if it was up to studios they're going to sacrifice quality for lower cost."
James Cameron can't have it both ways, nor can he be the spokesperson for all filmmakers. His comments do not leave the choice up to the filmmaker, he's trying to create a future where everyone will have to fall in line or be deemed irrelevant. And oh, the problems with this whole mess... Keeping 3D around is one thing -- it's still pretty easy to avoid it. But attempting to make it the way we watch film and media? It is the most absurd thing I've read this month, year, or decade.
Think about it, folks. Yeah,
Avatar looked pretty in 3D. But do you want
everything that way? Do you want to have to sit just so, wearing those glasses, to watch a movie or TV? It takes the convenience out of home viewing, where one can get up, do chores, do work or homework, whatever they please. It makes for an ever-increasing amount of waste with 3D glasses. It immediately eliminates
that five to twelve percent who, like me, find watching 3D a challenge (if not impossible). In essence, it will render many with sighted viewers unable to go to a film or watch a television show.
And what of the artistry of cinema? The history will fall even further away, or be ravaged by studios in the way Cameron recently protested. It also removes the power from the viewer. We can sit in that theater seat and let our eyes gaze the whole image, moving from part to part, focusing on the actor or surroundings, reveling in environment just as much as performance. With 3D, you watch where the film pushes you, the outskirts often quite blurry or ill-defined. That was certainly the case with
Avatar. And of course, there's the case of relevancy. When sifting through 3D commentary, fans seem to like it for the big genre picks, but even those folks know 3D's limits. Would you want 3D for the dramas and everything else as well?
Is this the future you want? Do you want 3D to replace 2D as color replaced black and white? If no, speak now, opt for 2D now, or you won't have a choice, if Cameron has his say.
