'Avatar' Director James Cameron Calls 3-D 'A Whole New Way To Paint, A Whole New Set Of Colors' ב- 12:52

Many labels have been applied to James Cameron's 2009 smash "Avatar" since even before it hit theaters, but few have been more ubiquitous than "game-changer." The sci-fi epic is notable for being conceived and written from the ground up to play as a 3-D release. Many in the industry believed that the release of "Avatar" would herald a newfound focus on the tech, something that had already been picking up steam in the months leading to the December 18 release.

When Cameron stopped by earlier this week to chat with MTV's Josh Horowitz on a variety of topics, it was inevitable that 3-D would come up, and it's perceived game-changing influence on the business of Hollywood.

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

"Yeah... yeah, blame me for that," he said with a grin. Josh went on to list a number of examples, including the coming "Clash of the Titans" conversion, the Grammys-- and Cameron stopped him there.

"The Grammys did it wrong," he said, "with the [need for] red and blue [glasses]. Everybody took the glasses off and said 'This isn't like the Avatar 3-D!'" To him, it's a sign that moviegoers in general are developing a more refined palate for tech advancements such as this.

"There is an evolution, people are now starting to not accept inferior forms, which is good. But it's typical of Hollywood getting it wrong," Cameron explained. "It's like, we do a film that's natively authored in 3-D, shot in 3-D. So they assume from the success of that that they can just turn movies into 3-D in eight weeks, and... that's going to work somehow."

There's an unspoken reference in that statement to "Clash," which was only recently confirmed for a 3-D conversion, even after director Louis Leterrier told us the opposite was true, that there wasn't enough time for such a conversion. Cameron's not about to badmouth his pals, however.

"Look, it's ['Avatar' star] Sam [Worthington] starring in the film, so I wish them all the success in the world, but [conversion is] just not the way to do it." A diplomatic response if ever there was one. "If you want to make a movie in 3-D, make the movie in 3-D. It should be a filmmaker-driven process, not a studio-driven process. I've been telling filmmakers for the last five years, there's this a whole new way to paint, a whole new set of colors, and they've all kind of hung back. Now it's getting crammed down from above and people are getting told to make movies in 3-D, and it should've been the other way around. They should've been banging on the doors of the studios saying 'I want to make a movie in 3-D! Let me do it!' And it didn't happen."

What's your stance on 3-D? Is it best used as a flourish, an added bonus to enhance your enjoyment of a movie? Or is it more valuable as an author's tool, as yet another agent for telling stories in an interesting way?

See full article at MTV Movies Blog »