Money Grab or Movie History?

There is no denying James Cameron is one of the most polarizing directors in Hollywood. When he makes a movie, he usually invests millions upon millions of dollars to get it up and running. His topics range from world peace to humans suck. All of this, as you can imagine, can rub people the wrong way.

I take Cameron in stride. I know what he is going to make and I know what the finished product is going to look like. He’s never been one to shy away from a bunch of movie clichés and, let’s face it, the storyline is never original.

So why do we make him one of the wealthiest directors in Hollywood? The short answer is because he makes things look pretty. Really, really pretty. Avatar was a movie revolution. You couldn’t wait to see it. Then, you couldn’t wait to see it again. Was it because of the storyline? Maybe. But more than likely it was to see the incredible new world Cameron created with a new 3-D camera.

Since this time 3-D has been all the rage (again). It goes through cycles. When I was a little bitty kid 3-D was all the rage (again). When my father was a kid 3-D was all the rage (again). You see where this is going.

In my mind, what Cameron did with Avatar was nothing short of spectacular. It was beyond 3-D. It opened us to a whole new way of seeing a parallel universe that I haven’t seen since Star Wars. Many have already tried to cash in on the 3-D craze including Alice In Wonderland and Clash of the Titans.

Cameron recently announced he was going to go back and revise the Aliens and Terminator franchises as well as Titanic in 3-D. This is no doubt a huge money grab of already successful films. However, I don’t think it will have the affect he thinks it will have unless he can make it look like Avatar.

When Avatar took off, film makers took serious notice. They knew the script and message of the movie wasn’t the thing attracting people. They knew it was of the way it looked. So, many tried cashing in on all the rage. The problem has been that (so far) none of them look as good as Avatar. I give you Clash for example. They shot it with a regular camera and tried converting it to 3-D. It looked like ass. Alice In Wonderland was shot in 3-D and looked good. It didn’t look as amazing as Avatar, but at least it was done properly.

Here is my chief concern with Cameron going back and making these films 3-D. They weren’t originally shot in 3-D. This means he will have to convert them like Clash tried (and failed) to do. It makes me question his motives. Is it simply a money grab?

I’d like to be less cynical about it, but I can’t see how it’s going to work. The one thing holding me back from a full criticism of Cameron, however, is the fact he has amazed me before. Perhaps he does have an idea how to convert all those films and add elements we’ve never seen before. I sure hope he isn’t relying solely on his reputation to get us into theaters only to trick us every time they come out. I can see it now. We all pay the extra $4 for those glasses, sit down to watch a classic movie in new 3-D, only to realize it sucks and not much has changed. Then, we fall for it all over again because Cameron says he has fixed the problem. We would be as recycled as the glasses we need to watch it.

I’m going to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt on this and go ahead and become excited. I think it would be lovely to see the Terminator and Aliens in full-blown Avatar-like 3-D. It would certainly boost Arnold’s career. And, quite frankly, many people will line up to watch Leonardo drown in 3-D out of sheer spite. So I am letting my inner child roam and crossing my fingers that Cameron delivers.