"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." — James Cameron in the new issue of EW (not online yet, but sitting right in front of this writer). Sorry, but that's a future we're not really looking forward to.
He also takes losing the Oscar (for "Avatar") to his ex-wife oh so gracefully. Is it just us or he is saying the Academy picked the wrong film, but he's ok with that because she still deserved it?
"It was David and Goliath. Goliath had made more than a couple of billion dollars and 'The Hurt Locker' had made about what it cost to shoot, about $15 million. The Academy always likes to be the great equalizer. But I don't begrude her any of that. I couldn't think of a better outcome for our lives. I got my Oscar. She got her Oscar."
8/13/2010
James Cameron Says 'The Hurt Locker' Would Have Been Better In 3D
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To The Playlist
Posts
Comments
7 comments:
How nice of the king to concede and condescend to his ex. Most would agree that Avatar was only up for best picture because of its use of 3-D.
"... 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."
I dislike this man.
James Cameron is kind of a douche nowadays
That guy needs a punch in the ribs.
He was pretty much a douche before as well.
I'm pretty sure he is being about as nice and gracious as he could be expected to be.
He's such an ass-face. You can just tell. He doesn't even have to open his mouth, but then he does and you're like 'Oh, yeah. I was right.'
Post a Comment