James Cameron Probably Hates You

Tools    





28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
“Both Cameron and Scott worked themselves to a frazzle. You have to give them a hundred percent because they’re giving a hundred and eighty percent.

And the incredible thing about Cameron is, because he’s been a production designer and a special-effects supervisor, you can’t pull the wool over his eyes. If you give him what he wants then he’s over the moon, if you don’t give him what he wants, the **** hits the fan and he goes out there and does it himself. He knows how to do practically everything associated with a film.

What you have to remember is: If you say to Cameron, ‘Look, I really don’t think I can do this this way, but I can do it that way!’ He’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, he won’t say ‘You’ve got to do it this way!!’ But, after you’ve said what you can do, if you don’t then do it ... look out."
He has a reputation of being a real tyrant.

“No, he’s a very charming man, actually. When he’s under pressure, he can be tough, but most of the time, I really liked him. You’ve heard the stories about the crew wearing t-shirts saying ‘You can’t scare me, I’ve worked with Cameron’, well, the truth is, he’s an incredibly generous man.

I was up for an Oscar for the work I did on Aliens, but I had my nomination squashed by Twentieth Century Fox. I’d shot most of the model-shots during live-action shooting, and over-saw all the post-production stuff, and because of that Cameron asked for my name to be put on the nomination list. But, at that time, the Academy were only accepting four names per nomination and, because I’d started work last, my name came fifth.

Jim Cameron stood up, at the Academy nominations committee meeting, and argued on my behalf, for three-quarters of an hour, that my name should be on as I’d done more work than some of those whose names came before mine. He said it was a complete injustice. But Fox had the say, and because of regulations, they would have had to pay a penalty of about a hundred and eighty thousand dollars to remove an undeserving name and replace it with mine, so that was it.

Well, I understand that’s how it works; but Jim and Gale didn’t accept it. They had a special Academy Nomination prize made for me by Tiffany’s, which they presented to me as a consolation prize. I thought that was really sweet of them.”


That's a quote from Brian Johnson who won an Oscar for his work on Alien. He also worked on the sequel with Cameron. Basically he expects nothing but the best from the crew and can be extremely short with you if you don't do your job. Regarding Aliens, it doesn't help when the crew is questioning EVERY single thing you do as a director. Obviously tensions are going to be high and it creates a hostile working environment. But in all honesty, a crew should have faith in their director. The crew of Aliens did not and it wasn't until the saw the final product that they realized the guy is extremely talented.

He has a big ego, there is no doubt about that, but he can back that up. The two biggest films of all-time are his. He invented camera and pre-viz for Avatar. He talked big game about Avatar and changing the industry, but it was the industries half ass attempt at cashing in on 3D that is giving it a bad name. All the post conversion crap we see. Avatar looked glorious in theatres and I don't care if people complain about originality, Cameron can tell an entertaining story. I'll be interested in seeing where he takes the world of Avatar.

I don't care about any of his religious views or how that would change my viewing of his films.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Great post usual suspects. That Tiffany award sounds pretty cool.
He also arranged discounted Limited Edition deep sea challenge Rolex watches for the crew on that shoot



That's a quote from Brian Johnson who won an Oscar for his work on Alien. He also worked on the sequel with Cameron.
It'd be pretty amazing if he didn't have any positive anecdotes after over 30 years in the business. I think we'd probably agree the bulk of them are negative, though. Though this one certainly gives us some additional insight into what most of the conflict is about, so thanks for posting it.

Basically he expects nothing but the best from the crew and can be extremely short with you if you don't do your job.
Well, yeah, but that's how all meglomaniacs are: they're very nice if you do what they want, and awful to you if you don't.

Regarding Aliens, it doesn't help when the crew is questioning EVERY single thing you do as a director. Obviously tensions are going to be high and it creates a hostile working environment. But in all honesty, a crew should have faith in their director.
I don't see how we can blame the crew when he's had the same kinds of problems with other crews, on other movies, and with actors, too. I agree there was a "hostile working environment," but that's pretty clearly something Cameron brings with him to all these films.

The crew of Aliens did not and it wasn't until the saw the final product that they realized the guy is extremely talented.
Of course. I don't think anyone questions his talent, at least on the technical side.

He has a big ego, there is no doubt about that, but he can back that up. The two biggest films of all-time are his. He invented camera and pre-viz for Avatar. He talked big game about Avatar and changing the industry, but it was the industries half ass attempt at cashing in on 3D that is giving it a bad name. All the post conversion crap we see. Avatar looked glorious in theatres and I don't care if people complain about originality, Cameron can tell an entertaining story.
Gotta disagree on the 3D. While the 3D I saw on Avatar was better than the post conversion stuff, it was still pretty bad. I think that's an example of his desire to be groundbreaking interfering with the quality of the film itself, just as the desire to hammer his points home interferes with the quality of the writing.

I don't care about any of his religious views or how that would change my viewing of his films.
The point of mentioning his religious views wasn't about the views themselves: it was to illustrate that they exert a clear negative influence on his films.



A nicely-written essay. I do see your point that Cameron probably isn't a very good director as he tends to make his messages too unsubtle, and he doesn't seem like a very friendly person in real life either, but I'm not sure if it would be correct or fair to call him a misanthrope. He may think humanity is flawed, but by holding a mirror up to its face he's at least trying to make it aware of its flaws, trying to get it to change, as his Earth Day speech suggests.
Well, that was probably the most hopeful quote I could find, and it still contained the phrase "we're all doomed." As mentioned in the part about The Abyss, the negativity is always the point and the positivity is always an addendum. But it'll be interesting to see if he drifts this way (towards more constructive critiques of humanity) now that he's later in his career, though. I could see that.

I can't really guess what this would look like, though, since in Avatar it's ostensibly a "back to nature" kinda deal, which is gonna be tough to marry with all the technocracy stuff.

But what about those other "blockbuster" directors? The ones who make "simplistic, crowd-pleasing" films, as the first line of the essay suggests? The ones whose films don't have any artistic merit, and don't even have a message either? The ones whose films glorify violence, sexism, war, and the general cultural flaws that Cameron's films criticise? The ones who keep on making the same formulaic, meaningless films and yet still expect people to come and see them? Aren't they more like misanthropes?
This is a good question. I think "humanity sucks" is a lot more misanthropic than just pandering to audiences, because you can make a film that panders and still just regard it as mindless entertainment that the audience knows has little redeeming value. It doesn't have to indicate that you think the audience is vapid just because the film is. IE: the world needs junk food, too.

Also, while a lot of blockbusters are all the things you describe, most of the films at the top of the historical box office are a lot less so. Star Wars, Gone With the Wind, E.T., et cetera. The vapid stuff can still make a lot of money (to my chagrin), but most of the stuff at the very top is more thoughtful and hopeful. Cameron's films really stick out up there.



I enjoyed this, and partially because I've been in discussions around Kendrick's latest album, and what his releases tell us about the person. I think music does an alright job of having discussions about what discographies tell us about their creators, but I don't see it about filmographies as much (might just be uniformed there though).
That's a good point. Two guesses as to why:
1) Films are more overtly team affairs than songs. Even when directors write the film themselves, everything you see on screen is still the product of a dozen other people's work. And when they don't even write it themselves, then the primary trace of the director's own worldview is merely that they chose it.

2) Remnant of the old pre-auteur theory concept of directing, where they're more like hired guns, having not quite faded away. Which probably existed in the first place in part because of point #1.
Especially interesting with regards to what stays consistent among different films, and how those core pieces' gravity affects the movies (as in, some directors have consistent elements among films, but those pieces don't bend the film towards that element in a way that feels unnatural, where I take it part of why Yoda chose Cameron is that he noticed that there wasn't just a common set of core ideas, but that the film also seemed to have that core as a fixture).
Yes, definitely. I went out of my way a couple of times to note that just returning to a theme wasn't especially noteworthy by itself. Like anyone, I can get tired of a director going to the same well too often (Tim Burton, anyone?), but what stuck out to me here was that it had clearly and overtly made great films worse, and aligned with the director's personal life and beliefs so obviously.

II am curious, which came first? Noticing there was a common theme in the movies and wanting to explore that? Hearing about his off-screen personality and wondering if it informed his movies? Something else?
I really like this question. I'm actually not positive, but I think it was primarily two things: first, reading a book called The Sinking of the Titanic and Great Sea Disasters and being aghast at how badly he twisted things in that third act, and then reading about the Director's Cut of The Abyss (a film I've always loved, by the way). I was barely aware of the off-screen stuff until I started looking into him more.



The Adventure Starts Here!
In regard to the lengthy post with the quote from one of the crew (and the Tiffany award thing):

Am I the only one who read that whole anecdote and thought Cameron could have been arguing his case because then it would have netted HIS FILM another nomination? You do realize that HE benefits from winning one of his crew a nomination, right? The fact that he did a lovely thing (the Tiffany item) later doesn't negate that. (And he could have done that at the behest of someone else, or just because he had given the poor guy hope he'd have his nomination, only to have failed him completely. Trying to save face somewhat?)

Yeah, call me a skeptic on this one.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Gotta disagree on the 3D. While the 3D I saw on Avatar was better than the post conversion stuff, it was still pretty bad. I think that's an example of his desire to be groundbreaking interfering with the quality of the film itself, just as the desire to hammer his points home interferes with the quality of the writing.
Is there any 3D film you think that did it well? In my opinion Avatar set the bar and no other film has come close to it. He compensated the dimness of the glasses by making everything bright. He thinks of everything.

I enjoyed the 3D for Avatar and hate pretty much everything else.



Is there any 3D film you think that did it well? In my opinion Avatar set the bar and no other film has come close to it. He compensated the dimness of the glasses by making everything bright. He thinks of everything.

I enjoyed the 3D for Avatar and hate pretty much everything else.
Honestly...no. I've never liked it. The only time I think I liked it even a little was in the re-release of The Nightmare Before Christmas, where they just stuck a few objects in the foreground. It was subtle and didn't distract from the film itself much. So I've liked it in proportion to how little it was used.

I agree that Cameron did it better by making it brighter, but to me that's the absolute minimum. It's cinematic malpractice when someone doesn't.



The Adventure Starts Here!
In the spirit of full disclosure, though, Yoda, would you say that, like your sainted mother, you might have slight motion sickness issues that would make 3D less tolerable? I think you and I both had issues with a video game or two (Jazz Punk, for instance) that were related to a low-level motion sickness. I've never gone to a 3D movie for this very reason. Not willing to take the chance. Some of those cliff dives in Avatar even without the 3D were enough for me.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Some of those cliff dives in Avatar even without the 3D were enough for me.
LOL that happens to me and I dont need 3D to set it off. Even looking at a photo of someone on the edge of a cliff gives me vertigo.



In the spirit of full disclosure, though, Yoda, would you say that, like your sainted mother, you might have slight motion sickness issues that would make 3D less tolerable? I think you and I both had issues with a video game or two (Jazz Punk, for instance) that were related to a low-level motion sickness. I've never gone to a 3D movie for this very reason. Not willing to take the chance. Some of those cliff dives in Avatar even without the 3D were enough for me.
Oddly, I don't recall feeling any motion sickness watching 3D movies. Totally makes sense that I would, given that I'm weirdly susceptible to it in other contexts, but I feel fine watching them. Go figure.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Parking this here for MamaYods who I think will find it interesting, and anyone else who gets physical symptoms from watching 3D - links back to a comment I made earlier about stereo blindness which maybe Cameron didn't take into account

https://covdblog.wordpress.com/2010/...ision-problem/



The Adventure Starts Here!
Thanks for this, Dani. Pretty sure my issue is a combination of motion sickness (which I have had all my life in many contexts) and fear of heights. I get my eyes checked by a specialist twice a year (we have excellent eye care coverage and I have diabetes, so it's important to have the eyes checked more often, and for more things).

The Jazz Punk game Yoda and I have had issues with is known for its issues with lots of people (almost the way strobe lights affect people, I think), and I was relieved when Yoda told me this because I'd been playing the game a lot and then had felt queasy the whole rest of the day and had no idea why. I wouldn't have thought to connect the two.

I don't have any desire to see a 3D movie and don't feel I'm missing out, so I won't try to solve something I don't currently consider a problem. Plus, I do NOT want to sit through Avatar again!



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Thanks for this, Dani. Pretty sure my issue is a combination of motion sickness (which I have had all my life in many contexts) and fear of heights. I get my eyes checked by a specialist twice a year (we have excellent eye care coverage and I have diabetes, so it's important to have the eyes checked more often, and for more things).

The Jazz Punk game Yoda and I have had issues with is known for its issues with lots of people (almost the way strobe lights affect people, I think), and I was relieved when Yoda told me this because I'd been playing the game a lot and then had felt queasy the whole rest of the day and had no idea why. I wouldn't have thought to connect the two.

I don't have any desire to see a 3D movie and don't feel I'm missing out, so I won't try to solve something I don't currently consider a problem. Plus, I do NOT want to sit through Avatar again!
Avatar didnt make you want to be a tall blue monkey and go hug a tree, MamaYods?

I dont get motion sickness. I think I had it once slightly in rough seas but that could have been because I drank more than one caipirinha. I only get vertigo watching movies or tv because of my fear of heights, but I also get it if my husband asks me to check out what he's killing ina computer game. The only problem 3D causes me is I focus on the visuals and miss dialogue, but that's a good thing because when I watched Gravity in 2D I realised the dialogue was caca.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Honestly...no. I've never liked it. The only time I think I liked it even a little was in the re-release of The Nightmare Before Christmas, where they just stuck a few objects in the foreground. It was subtle and didn't distract from the film itself much. So I've liked it in proportion to how little it was used.

I agree that Cameron did it better by making it brighter, but to me that's the absolute minimum. It's cinematic malpractice when someone doesn't.
3D serves stop-motion animation extremely well. Coraline did a pretty good job at it and I would probably put that second to Avatar. I take back my previous statement about nothing coming close.



An interesting read. I think Cameron has always been more of a great businessman than a great filmmaker, he has an incredible ability to predict what audiences want before they know themselves. Because of his success and subsequent imitators, he is also one of the people most responsible for the state of Hollywood today, for better or worse.

I can't say I particularly like anything he has done outside of the Terminator franchise, but I have to respect what he has accomplished, even if his legacy is not necessarily something to be proud of. Also I can certainly sympathize with his misanthropy.
Ratings prove you wrong. I am going to provide Rotten Tomatoes(%) ratings and imdb for his last 7 films
Terminator 100% vs 8/10
Aliens 98% vs 8.4/10
The Abyss 89% vs 7.6/10
Terminator 2 93% vs 8.5/10
True Lies 72% vs 7.2/10
Titanic 88% vs 7.7/10
Avatar 83% vs 7.8/10

What the above percentages and fractions say is that critics and audiences agree that James Cameron is a master at story telling. He is one of the greatest filmmaker of all time. He is consistent in delivering quality films. He is the 4th highest grossing Director and he has only 7 movies that were shown in cinemas while the other have dozens.



What the above percentages and fractions say is that critics and audiences agree that James Cameron is a master at story telling.
They don't say that at all. Filmmaking is not a synonym for storytelling. Films are a multi-faceted art form and it's not at all unusual for films with mediocre (or even bad) stories to nevertheless succeed as films due to, say, elaborate special effects, particularly if you only measure success by popularity.

We've also already discussed why you can't use ratings to establish greatness.