James Cameron Says The Hurt Locker Woud Have Been Better in 3D

by at . Comments

I guess when you've made the highest grossing film ever, you've earned the right to have a huge ego.

In a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly, James Cameron made a few seemingly backhanded remarks about his ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow's 2009 Best Picture winner, claiming it would have been a better movie if it was filmed stereoscopically.

Cameron's Ego

“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.”

On one hand, I can see him arguing for a technology he's invested a lot of time, energy and money in, but at the same time, it kind of reeks of sore loser, if you get what I mean. Especially when you consider his later comment:

“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 begrudge her any of that. I couldn’t think of a better outcome for our lives. I got my Oscar. She got her Oscar.”

Of course he sugar coats it after the fact, but you know secretly he's a little peeved that Avatar could break every box office record known to man, and yet it couldn't take home Best Picture. Especially since it bested his previous film, Titanic, which used to be the king of the hill at the box office and won no less than 11 Oscars, including that Best Picture trophy. You're right, Jim, you got robbed! Maybe that's the real reason he's re-releasing his latest magnum opus in IMAX 3D theaters on August 27th...

I can appreciate his enthusiasm for 3D technology, but to claim that The Hurt Locker would have been a better film if it had been shot in 3D is rather ridiculous. Cameron seems to think that every movie should be 3D, and if it's not, it's inferior. I would have to completely disagree here. In fact, I think in a lot of cases, 3D can be a huge distraction. Also, due to its intense subject matter, I highly doubt audiences would be flocking to see a 3D Hurt Locker.

Just the basic idea that an almost universally celebrated film could be made "better" through employing 3D is absurd. How about Citizen Kane, or The Godfather? Should we prepare for the eventual 3D re-release of every James Cameron movie? Titanic is already on the way... Does this mean you're going to post convert Piranha 2 to make it better, Jim?

Maybe I'm reading into it, but his choice of words regarding The Hurt Locker making "about what it cost to shoot" and the Academy being "the great equalizer" just smacks of indignation. As for the "I couldn't think of a better outcome for our lives" portion of the comment, you can fill in your own blanks. Divorces tend to bring out the best in people, right?

What do you think? Is James Cameron really that crazy about 3D, or is he just a little bitter that his ex-wife stole the Oscar out from under his nose? For bonus points, count how many times I had to use "3D" in this article!

FREE Movie Newsletter

Tags: , , , ,