James Cameron Thinks VR Is A "Yawn"

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I actually thought James Cameron, of all people, would be a fan of virtual reality.

"There seems to be a lot of excitement around something that, to me, is a yawn, frankly," he said "The question that always occurred to me is, when is it going to be mature, when is it going to be accepted by the public at large, when are people going to start authoring in VR and what will that be?" Cameron said.
Click to expand...
 
He's just pissed off someone else already wrote a VR sex SIM using his Avatar aliens and tried to charge him for it....
 
He's probably saying this to throw other producers off. I bet that he's simultaneously shooting Avatar 2 for VR so he can say he was the first to do it ;).
 
"The question that always occurred to me is, when is it going to be mature, when is it going to be accepted by the public at large, when are people going to start authoring in VR and what will that be?" Cameron said.

"What will the level of interactivity with the user be other than just ‘I can stand and look around,'" he elaborated, adding: "If you want to move through a virtual reality it’s called a video game, it’s been around forever."
Click to expand...

These are my thoughts exactly. Like, when is Oculus Rift going to stop looking like VAPORWARE.

James Cameron is also always right.
 
Why is his opinion important?
The man is a director, he makes explosions and fights, the same way, over and over again.

Why would we ask him about VR? There are people in the tech industry who don't even really grasp it's eventual footprint (most).

This is just ego and elitism, I relate this statement to how he mentally collapsed on stage during that one trade show. The man is weak.
 
ITT: People who think James Cameron is Michael Bay and have no clue what they're talking about.
 
James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron.
Click to expand...

From southpark, that i always find relevant when he speaks.
 
I don't disagree, but you have to start somewhere. It's like looking at Wolfenstein 3D and declaring that first person shooters are worthless.
 
Hollywood type:
This is my favorite painting.

That Guy
Uh, it's a painting of someone taking a crap.

Hollywood type:
Yes, Yes, but look at the emotion expressed on his face! Look how the artist captures this visceral moment! This is real art!

That Guy
Uh, Yeah, that's art alright.
 
Megalith said:
ITT: People who think James Cameron is Michael Bay and have no clue what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

Aliens, Terminator, Titanic, Avatar guy. Guy that took the Challenger to the bottom of the Mariana Trench?

I thought he'd embrace it. Bring the Avatar world to VR. Aliens game in VR would be pants shitting worthy. Walking through the Titanic in an educational game would be pretty cool (among many other places). Terminator? While it'd be a fun game, and it's one of my favorite franchises, I don't know if it would translate to a VR world very well.

Oh well. I still think it will be awesome. I don't need his approval.
 
Looking for a thoughtful and intelligent opinion from anyone in Hollyweird is like making a movie about digging through a sentient planet for unobtanium, stupid.
 
Translated: Anything James Cameron can't immediately exploit = crap. 10 years from now he'll be the first in line to do some garbage action flick with mindblowing FX in full VR......
 
The guy wrote a movie where the mcguffin was a resource called "Unobtainium" where the guy has a chunk of it on his desk worth like a few MILLION dollars, which makes no sense if it was so valuable.

At that, you're never told what its used for
 
While he probably could have been more tactful about it, I agree to a certain point.

Right now the technology is impressive, but still VERY immature. It's going to be at LEAST another 5-10 years before it's mature enough that pretty much ANYONE can use it. Resolution and refresh rate both need to scale upwards. And various ancillary technologies are going to need to advance (or even simply come into existence) to handle other issues in the current VR space (dependable tracking, compensation techniques for people subject to vertigo, etc).

After that, various market conditions will determine whether it becomes a ubiquitous technology.
 
ShamisOMally said:
The guy wrote a movie where the mcguffin was a resource called "Unobtainium" where the guy has a chunk of it on his desk worth like a few MILLION dollars, which makes no sense if it was so valuable.

At that, you're never told what its used for
Click to expand...

Though they did demonstrate that it's an ambient temperature superconductor (the floaty piece on the guy's desk).
 
This is ironic because Cameron largely ushered in the new 3D movie age, except he severely toned downed the depth, making it the worst of both worlds: less sharp than 2D, not 3D enough for immersion. 3D movies now have less depth than ones we had in the 50s, it's no wonder it's not very well received, it's like a half-assed pop up book, not an immersive experience like it can be. VR stands to actually do 3D right, I guess that's why Cameron hates it?
 
I don't think we're too far away from VR tbh. Safe VR on the other hand......
 
Kalabalana said:
Why is his opinion important?
The man is a director, he makes explosions and fights, the same way, over and over again.

Why would we ask him about VR? There are people in the tech industry who don't even really grasp it's eventual footprint (most).

This is just ego and elitism, I relate this statement to how he mentally collapsed on stage during that one trade show. The man is weak.
Click to expand...

LOL next time you post please google names and confirm who you are taking about.
 
tetris42 said:
This is ironic because Cameron largely ushered in the new 3D movie age, except he severely toned downed the depth, making it the worst of both worlds: less sharp than 2D, not 3D enough for immersion. 3D movies now have less depth than ones we had in the 50s, it's no wonder it's not very well received, it's like a half-assed pop up book, not an immersive experience like it can be. VR stands to actually do 3D right, I guess that's why Cameron hates it?
Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with your post its hard to pick.

#1 3D in the 50's wasn't in any way in color.

#2 You obviously haven't seen Avatar on a calibrated plasma or large DLP screen where its all about depth and being able to "reach or be" past the characters.

#3 Too much pop out in 3D is known factually to cause head aches and seizures, active or passive, hence why more in the screen depth.

#4 4K 3D @ 48 frames per second was incredibly clear and smooth which at higher fps, can obtain more pop out with less effect of headaches or eye strain. This is evident in all new Hobbit movies where HFR is playing in select theaters.

#5 Post production vs. Shot in 3d. Avatar, Life of Pie, and Hobbit are only a few I know where the at least 80% of the movie was shot in Native 3D. I agree alot of the crap that came out with Post production/studio added 3d, was crap.

#6 Eyesight. Offset vision (20/15 one eye, 20/25 in the other) really can throw off any 3D perception. Because someone can't see it as well (which really is a big case on 3d) doesn't mean it "Isn't good". Astigmatism in either eye doesn't allow you to "perceive" 3d hardly at all, and can cause massive eyestrain.

Xmas 2009 I sat 2 rows forward of dead center. Avatar 3d made my hair stand up on the back of my neck. Jumping off the waterfall I gasp, walking high up in the trees made me feel as though I could lose "my" balance. Has a lot to do with the 50 foot screen and how the theater set it up too. (Clean projector, lens setup right for 3d projection.) Granted the story wasn't the greatest, but damn if I left excited and reproduced at home on my DLP/7.1 surround sound system. I have show cased this for the last 3 years and everybody is astonished at the 3d on my big screen.

Now, he will make another advancement with 4K 3d@120fps (with less Window look of current 48fps) and basically force TV makers to get their 4K shit worked out and final standard for home use.

And I agree with him. VR is a joke period. We have companies like Microsoft well into hologram type projection and display. VR is a waste of funding. Also if VR becomes too real, the brain/body can believe that is real and react in such manner. If 3d can make you jump back or give goosebumps, what overly realistic VR going to do?
 
fdiaz78 said:
LOL next time you post please google names and confirm who you are taking about.
Click to expand...

I'm reading this thread and it's hilarious! James Cameron is probably the most commercially successful movie director of all time. His directed the two highest grossing films ever, the only two ever to gross over $2 billion each. And Avatar, the most commercially successful movie of all time owes that in large part due to Cameron's implementation of 3D.

The guy is simply brilliant.
 
"brilliant'...hahaha...he is a leftist mouth breather...I have an Oculus Rift...not saying it's the greatest think since sex with your teacher...but I watched avatar and turned it off 3 quarters of the way through because it is a "yawn"...I have officially spent 50 times as much time using the rift for Assetto Corsa and Alien Isolation as I did watching his tripe "Afartar"

...I'm just sayin'
 
Killahurtz said:
leftist mouth breather..
Click to expand...
oh boy.this coming from the person who obviously can't put what he is saying into context. You sitting in your house on an expensive, purpose-built PC playing with a VR headset is by no means "mature" and "accepted by the public at large".

It's entirely possible that VR is both impressive in it's current state, yet still definitely immature as a technology. These things aren't mutually exclusive. The Ford Model T is a piece of shit compared to the Ford Mustang GT of 2015, that doesn't mean the first cars didn't blow people's minds.
 
I think he lost his touch a long time ago. Aliens & Terminator was what 20+ years ago. People slam lucas for shitting all over his franchise with the later movies but Cameron did much the same. He cant make a good movie if his life depended on it (anymore)
 
Saito said:
I think he lost his touch a long time ago. Aliens & Terminator was what 20+ years ago. People slam lucas for shitting all over his franchise with the later movies but Cameron did much the same. He cant make a good movie if his life depended on it (anymore)
Click to expand...

Because Avatar was such a huge failure............oh wait.
 
Megalith said:
ITT: People who think James Cameron is Michael Bay and have no clue what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

Cameron is my favourite director, along with Paul Verhoeven. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he says. In this particular case he's not even wrong - VR is certainly not ready for the masses - but we should we give a fuck about what the masses have adopted? We need this shit for games.
 
SnowBeast said:
There is so much wrong with your post its hard to pick.

#1 3D in the 50's wasn't in any way in color.

#2 You obviously haven't seen Avatar on a calibrated plasma or large DLP screen where its all about depth and being able to "reach or be" past the characters.

#3 Too much pop out in 3D is known factually to cause head aches and seizures, active or passive, hence why more in the screen depth.

#4 4K 3D @ 48 frames per second was incredibly clear and smooth which at higher fps, can obtain more pop out with less effect of headaches or eye strain. This is evident in all new Hobbit movies where HFR is playing in select theaters.

#5 Post production vs. Shot in 3d. Avatar, Life of Pie, and Hobbit are only a few I know where the at least 80% of the movie was shot in Native 3D. I agree alot of the crap that came out with Post production/studio added 3d, was crap.

#6 Eyesight. Offset vision (20/15 one eye, 20/25 in the other) really can throw off any 3D perception. Because someone can't see it as well (which really is a big case on 3d) doesn't mean it "Isn't good". Astigmatism in either eye doesn't allow you to "perceive" 3d hardly at all, and can cause massive eyestrain.

Xmas 2009 I sat 2 rows forward of dead center. Avatar 3d made my hair stand up on the back of my neck. Jumping off the waterfall I gasp, walking high up in the trees made me feel as though I could lose "my" balance. Has a lot to do with the 50 foot screen and how the theater set it up too. (Clean projector, lens setup right for 3d projection.) Granted the story wasn't the greatest, but damn if I left excited and reproduced at home on my DLP/7.1 surround sound system. I have show cased this for the last 3 years and everybody is astonished at the 3d on my big screen.

Now, he will make another advancement with 4K 3d@120fps (with less Window look of current 48fps) and basically force TV makers to get their 4K shit worked out and final standard for home use.

And I agree with him. VR is a joke period. We have companies like Microsoft well into hologram type projection and display. VR is a waste of funding. Also if VR becomes too real, the brain/body can believe that is real and react in such manner. If 3d can make you jump back or give goosebumps, what overly realistic VR going to do?
Click to expand...
I'm basing this entirely on my experience with S-3D. I saw Avatar in the theater in 3D and the ENTIRE TIME I was thinking it needed more depth, I thought it was pathetically flat compared to other S-3D I had seen prior. The cliff scenes should have been giving me vertigo, but instead it felt just like sheets of paper stacked on one another. I remember the scenes where you see characters behind the glass being "not awful", but that's the best I could say about the 3D effects. I saw the Hobbit in the theater also at 48fps, I thought it had shit depth also. You say "more is in the screen depth" than in the pop-out, but I'm saying they're BOTH awful in mainstream 3D movies now, they're just too damn flat. The only good modern S-3D I've seen in movies have been custom ones for amusement parks and the like.

I used the Elsa Revelator glasses back in the late 90s and when tweaked with the right games, their depth was simply amazing. I also got to see an anaglyph 1950s sci movie where the depth was also incredible. There were scenes of a rock slide where it felt like the rocks were going to crush you, there was a scene where an alien fired a ray gun that was right in your face and you couldn't help but jump.

Good S-3D feels like you're in another world, not just a gimmicky effect, and to get that feeling you need realistic depth levels. Maybe I've been especially unlucky in the theaters I've gone to for 3D movies, but I'm skeptical if it's really as good as you're claiming.

And yeah, you got me on black and white, wasn't claiming they were in color back then, but their 3D felt a lot more real.
 
tetris42 said:
I'm basing this entirely on my experience with S-3D. I saw Avatar in the theater in 3D and the ENTIRE TIME I was thinking it needed more depth, I thought it was pathetically flat compared to other S-3D I had seen prior. The cliff scenes should have been giving me vertigo, but instead it felt just like sheets of paper stacked on one another. I remember the scenes where you see characters behind the glass being "not awful", but that's the best I could say about the 3D effects. I saw the Hobbit in the theater also at 48fps, I thought it had shit depth also. You say "more is in the screen depth" than in the pop-out, but I'm saying they're BOTH awful in mainstream 3D movies now, they're just too damn flat. The only good modern S-3D I've seen in movies have been custom ones for amusement parks and the like.

I used the Elsa Revelator glasses back in the late 90s and when tweaked with the right games, their depth was simply amazing. I also got to see an anaglyph 1950s sci movie where the depth was also incredible. There were scenes of a rock slide where it felt like the rocks were going to crush you, there was a scene where an alien fired a ray gun that was right in your face and you couldn't help but jump.

Good S-3D feels like you're in another world, not just a gimmicky effect, and to get that feeling you need realistic depth levels. Maybe I've been especially unlucky in the theaters I've gone to for 3D movies, but I'm skeptical if it's really as good as you're claiming.

And yeah, you got me on black and white, wasn't claiming they were in color back then, but their 3D felt a lot more real.
Click to expand...


I agree with you mostly. I have yet to feel fully immersed by any 3D technology. I dont necessarily still think its a gimmick, but its still not a necessity. We are still a long ways off from it being a standard expected part of our theater experience. VR is/will be in the same boat for a long time. Far too niche atm, and when it does hit mainstream, there will still be years before it really feels like everyone has to have one and everything has to be made for it.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Because Avatar was such a huge failure............oh wait.
Click to expand...

it's not about whether the movies made money, just like new trilogy star wars also made money. Even so those movies are nowhere near up to scratch compared to the their earlier works, which were actually good.
 
I think he has a fair point. VR has been a promising technology for a long time without delivering anything that is acceptable to the general public. Although now I think we are almost at the point where it will be good enough.
 
I think Cameron feels that the public won't be jumping on this and it won't take off...hell even 3D is still a niche...and they both suffer from the same problem- people don't want to wear clunky devices on their face to enjoy a movie/game...
 
+1, Cameron's newer movies are yawn-fests... Can't remember one thing about Avatar except that guys horribly annoying make-up job. Even the sex scene was forgettable... the dude should just go back to the bottom of the sea where he belongs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top