I read J.C.’s technical analyses and the first thing I always think is “Wasn’t this guy a truck driver back in the day?” Didn’t he start out in film by driving trucks and hooking up squibs and exploding heads on b-movies? Man, this guy’s incredibly intelligent.

Not that you can’t be an incredibly intelligent truck driver, it’s just a great reminder that in this industry there’s no rules, education means absolutely nothing, drive means everything and there’s always someone smarter or more talented lurking in a corner somewhere, so you better watch your ass and always bring your “A” game. Gnome sane?

As far as editing 3d in 2d, is it about the processing power, or a matter of preference? I loved Beowulf, but the 3D looked like a pop-up book to me. It makes me wonder how much of this is zeitgeist.

I love many of Cameron’s movies, and his passion is infectious. Where’s my great 3D experience? I may check out U2, based on what you said. Concert films aren’t something I usually go for, but I really want to be blown away by all this.

Thanks Alex for mentioning the silliness/insanity of James Cameron calling out Godard, whose films remain challenging and relevant nearly a half-century after the fact. And for the record, Godard said “truth,” not “facts.” Cameron is obsessed with the facts of optometry (and economics), not the truth of art.

I for one am skeptical of this single-minded push toward realism or, more precisely, the accurate representation of reality. There is a substantial school of thought, a’la Rudolph Arnheim, which states that it is in fact film’s very shortcomings that give it the potential for artistic intent and interpretation.

There is yet another notion (and I think it was from the French New Wave, though I can’t attribute it precisely) that cinema will only become art when the means of cinema are as ubiquitous as pencils and paper.

Aren’t many of us screenwriters because we couldn’t afford to rent cameras and mics?

This is funny, since IMHO Cameron tends to cut corners on fantasy by doing it for real. Want to make a movie about Titanic? Rent a submarine and go there! And then build a replica in Mexico. Movie set in an underwater habitat? Build one! (Or at least, one module of it.) Characters menaced by an Austrian-accented cyborg from the future? Hire one! (Well…)

Wasn’t there a rumor that Cameron wanted to make a movie about Mars by actually going to Mars? I have no reason to doubt it.

That’s one huge advantage of being a screenwriter, we don’t have to keep up with technology as much. It doesn’t hurt, but when you get down to it, writing is writing.

My only concern would be the people will use 3-D to compensate for having a weak story. Sure, it doesn’t make sense, but look! It’s PRETTY!

3-D should be a tool to help the director tell the story, it shouldn’t be used just because it can be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxivision

I don’t think there’s any meaningful way to “write for 3-D.” Just as there wasn’t any difference when it came to writing for color, or widescreen, or digital. (Writing for sound, that’s a meaningful difference.)

But what I think you’re getting at is, “Should all movies of a certain scale be 3-D?” J.C. would say yes. There’s an action movie I’m thinking of directing, and I’ve spent the last week considering whether it would make sense to do in 3-D.

I mean… Like action movies, the best ones are those that you watch and don’t feel like the action was incorporated into the movie, it feels like it’s an integral part of the movie. The same applies for 3D? Or you can convert any film into 3D regardless?

When they put it on film.