Along with Chris Meledandri, they will be discussing all aspects of digital cinema - one of the more high-powered panels ever hosted by the convention.
James Cameron, Jeffrey Katzenberg, George Lucas and Chris Meledandri are set to appear together on a panel at CinemaCon, the annual convention of theater owners that takes place later this month in Las Vegas.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-jeffrey-katzenberg-george-167853
I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
Hey Cameron and Katzenberg are alright in my book.
I liked Avatar, and i love Star Trek the motion picture that Jeff K is largely responsible for spearheading.
Lucas on the other hand i would not want to listen to.
The only thing i ever want to hear from him is if he is making new movies that are not indiana jones or star wars, or if he will change his stance and allow the original star wars trilogy to be restored even if it comes out of someone elses pocket.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
skyjedi2005 said:
The only thing i ever want to hear from him is if he is making new movies that are not indiana jones or star wars, or if he will change his stance and allow the original tar wars trilogy to be restored even if it comes out of someone elses pocket.
Tar Wars was changed? You lie.
skyjedi2005 said:
I liked Avatar,
I didn't.
I wonder if Cameron and Lucas have chatted since those comments Cameron made about the special editions a while back?
Where were you in '77?
http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/03/30/cinemacon-2011-james-cameron-george-lucas-and-jeffrey-katzenberg-discuss-the-future-of-movies
CinemaCon 2011: James Cameron, George Lucas, and Jeffrey Katzenberg Discuss the Future of MoviesWow, my fingers have never typed as fast as they did to capture the notes for this panel. But how could they stop when it was James Cameron, George Lucas, and Jeffrey Katzenberg discussing the past, present and future of the movies? Each one a heavyweight in the movie industry’s technological evolution: Cameron, who pioneered modern 3D filmmaking with Avatar; Lucas, who pushed exhibitors to raise their audio/visual standards with THX; and Katzenberg, the man who ushered in the 3D era of the animation.
The three were on stage at CinemaCon today as part of the Digital Filmmakers Forum and spoke in detail about what to expect in the next five years. Also, Lucas dropped a small hint about Episode VII with a little cajoling by Katzenberg. I’ll get out of the way of these guys and let you geek out for yourself:
The Importance of Digital Technology
George Lucas: All of art is technology, whether it’s learning to draw on a wall with charcoal or using the printing press.
Take for instance in graphic arts, the move from fresco painting, where you’re inside a building with a giant crew and need to work quickly before the paint dries. Each person has their specialty, one guy is responsible for only making blue paint who learned it from his father and his father before that. You have to organize them, which makes it complicated when you’re dealing with creativity.
Then oil paints came along, freeing the artist. He could go outside by himself and decide to paint the sun. And if he didn’t like it, he could change it. This freed artists creatively and this is what digital does.
James Cameron: Digital technology gives you the ability to create worlds. We’re at a point where if we can imagine it then we can create it using the photo-realistic CG tools that are available now.
Then there’s the digital exhibition side which maintains that quality. Titanic played so long that our film prints fell apart, we only left theatres because of that. We only did a new round of 100 prints as the older film prints began to literally fall out of the projector. There’s a limit to how long a film print can be played and I know what it is, it’s 16 weeks. A good problem to have.
A major catalyst in making digital exhibition more ubiquitous was 3D. It’s what drove and is currently driving the digital rollout. But for the next two Avatar movies I want to display a higher framerate, 48 or 60 frames per second. Don’t think “oh, no” we have to spend more in upgrades since it’s a small cost once you’re in the digital realm. The expensive part is already done. Plu the faster framerate shows you a different movie, it takes the glass out of the window and puts you in reality.
We have to constantly fight against other distribution methods like premium VOD and streaming and to do this we have to be great showmen. We need to have great sound and a great image.
Jeffrey Katzenberg: Digital evolution in animation has actually been a revolution. From when John Lasseter delivered that first full-length CG animated movie in 1994 (Toy Story) to where we are 16 years later, digital tools have more then transformed the experience, it transformed the art of how it’s made.
We’re constantly trying to push the technology. Currently, we have 250 engineers working purely in R&D to make sure our animators have the best tools, so that each time you watch our movie it’s a new “wowie!” But we’re just building knowledge, we’re still so early in the process.
Lucas: Where we are in the stage of digital is like being in 1900 during the chemical research phase of film. We’re just touching the surface. And once you go digital, spending the money to get in the game, everything after that is infinitely cheaper.
You can go millions of miles with very little bit of gas, you can modify and move inexpensively.
Katzenberg: When I saw Polar Express in 2004, that was the first time I ever had an experience like that in a theatre. It exhilarated me like no movie has done before. It pulled me in emotionally and physically. I came out of the theatre thinking we need to do this right now.
The Next Five Years
Lucas: The big transformation has happened which was sound. That type of change won’t come for another 30, 40, 50 years. In digital, the things we are doing are just little incremental tweaks that make it better. The “real event” has already happened.
Like many theatregoers, I love the movie theatre. I make my movies for the movie theatre, I don’t mind other platforms, but you have to see it in the movie theatre to experience it how I want you to experience it. Theatres represent a social art that you can’t get that on an iPhone or on a computer. People go to a huge venue to share that experience together. They get to dress up, show off to other people, laugh, cry together. Movie theatres will never ever go away.
Katzenberg: In animation the next level is the next level of computing: scalable multi-core processing. What it means is that the power or the microchip is about to take a quantum leap and Moore’s Law goes out the window. Our artists can create and see their work in real-time. Right now, they get a couple seconds of animation rendered at low resolution and it gives them an idea of what it’s going to look like. Then 8 or 12 hours later after going through a render farm they get to see it finalized. They make little tweaks and go through the whole process again.
In this next generation they will see their work as they’re making it. Before it’s as if they were painting blind, but are now able to see what they’re painting. The process will change the quality of what we’re able to do.
Avatar set the high bar for a whole new level of imagination, thats about to happen to us in animation.
3D Filmmaking
Cameron: I can spend two hours busting myths. Like the myth that you have to shoot differently. The answer is yes and no.
I didn’t shoot differently when I made Avatar. I knew it would be seen in 3D and 2D, plus 3D at home was still a ways away. If you wanted to, you can shoot differently to absolutely optimize the experience and once we have 3D ubiquity then I think we can go that direction, but the point is you don’t have to. An over-the-shoulder shot is still an over-the-should shot. A close-up is still a close-up.
Then the myth of not being able to cut as quickly in a 3D movie. Last time I checked Avatar was an action movie and there’s a lot of quick cutting. Is there a tiny bit of knowledge required? Yes, but that’s what the Cinematographer and Editors are for.
Make sure you hire a team that understands stereo, but that should all be transparent. Still make the movie as you would make it with the 3D team as yes people. I didn’t change the way I shot. I had to comfort myself that I wouldn’t change and the movie wouldn’t suffer, it would be value added. Once 3D takes away from your normal process then you should rethink shooting in 3D.
Lucas: Last time I was here I was pushing digital, I wasn’t thinking about 3D. But Zemeckis and Cameron were big 3D guys and we talked about ShoWest. I thought it would be a great way to push digital and 3D since 3D needs that.
So I converted part of Star Wars into digital 3D. What I found is that it really does create a 3D space. We could never get Yoda to look right in that digital space in 2D. Once you saw him 3D it became real. The blue cats [in Avatar] are real.
In an over-the-shoulder shot you believe theres another side to it. When we converted Star Wars, it wasn’t a 3D movie, it was a movie in 3D. It puts you behind the proscenium.
Digital is like the invention of sound, 3D is like the invention of color. Sound changed everything in movies while color made it better. Just like
when you see a 2D movie you’ll feel like you’re watching a black-and-white film. Ultimately everything will completely be in 3D.3D Conversion Process for Titanic and Star Wars
Lucas: I’ve already gotten a lot of flack for changing the movie, but I’m interested in the concept of 3D that goes behind the proscenium. I’d love to see Jurassic Park in 3D. Who wouldn’t?
With the conversion tests we’ve done it hasn’t changed anything. But 3D is not a technical problem it’s a creative problem. We need to have people that are making informed decisions. It’s an artform and the shots are only as good as the people doing the shot. We’ve done the best conversion we could do since we began eight years ago. The crew knows every single shot so we have a certain advantage.
Cameron: I’m going to slam 3D conversion right now. You can’t convert in six weeks, that’s not 3D, it’s 2.2D. It’s false stereo. Because when it was being converted it was people looking at a screen, there’s no data stream captured when the shot was done to tell you the true spatial relationship. A guy at workstation can say this guy is big and this guy is little so I’ll put him in the background.
There’s no killer app that can convert something to 3D. It’s still about workstations and working for long periouds of time, hopefully with the filmmaker right there.
I can remember the Titanic set so I have insight about the space. We have scanned images of the performers from back then when it was used for face replacement FX. And since we have those scans of them, we can create continuous depth. But it can’t be done quickly.
It’s the bad 3D conversion which is eroding the artform. You can add all the bells and whistles you want, but you can’t add conversion to the post-production process. Unless if you have eight months which isn’t as cheap as just shooting natively in 3D.
Katzenberg: I don’t think its a question of tools, it’s the talent in control of the tools. 3D done to date that’s lowered the high bar has not had artists on the tools. It’s disappointing and devalues an amazing opportunity for all of us, which is why I’ve been too crticial perhaps. This is just the beginning and anybody that tries to cash in with the quick score will ruin it for the rest of us. It’s a travesty for us to take this amazing opportunity and offer something so important by taking the low road.
Lucas: The audience is listenting, to quote the famous line. Films that have been converted badly don’t go unnoticed.
Katzenberg: Will Episode VII be shot in 3D?
Lucas: Yes. By then it will be done as a hologram.
Final Thoughts on the Future of Cinema
Katzenberg: Above and beyond what you heard here, it’s the quality of the experience. The single greatest opportunity for exhibition is to acually bring together the ability to see a movie and eat a meal. It’s the next blockbuster thing that cannot be replicated in the home.
As George said, people want to go out and have a social experience. Here’s a way to keep theatres around forever.
Cameron: George and Jeff have been very eloquent about the social experience. There’s a sacredness to the theatre, that as a fillmmaker drove me to 3D. Once I saw digital 3D about 10-years ago, I thought: “that’s reality.” I’ve never shot on film again.
It was a 10-year journey of working on it, and the driver of that was the theatrical experience. We’ve taken hits from VHS and TV and we’ve rebounded, but we’ve rebounded with more confidence that we can put on a better show. Avatar is the highest-grossing movie of all-time, but it’s also one of the most pirated films in history. Then, why did it still make so much money?
Because of a cult-like need to watch it in theatre. If you didn’t, then you weren’t part of the conversation. It was the peer-to-peer social acceptance and ostracization that made it a huge success. Ticket sales for the 3D version of Avatar was about 50% of all ticket sales and by the end at was 80%. There was a need to have the 3D experience.
Lucas: Look, I’m bringing out Star Wars for the third time. Newsweek asked: “does he have no shame?”
Well we’re into the third generation that are under 12 who haven’t seen Star Wars. And I’m betting that people who have seen it many times will still join this new generation to see it again if it’s in a social experience.
Katzenberg: In 2005, when, along with Robert Zemeckis, we presented 3D to you guys, there weren’t even a 100 movie theatres in the world with 3D. In 2007 there were 707. By the end of this year there will be 35,000 theatres with 3D capabilities and we owe you a lot of thanks in your support and belief. We made it with a hope you would get there.
So for us and for filmmakers and for Hollywood, all we can say is “thank you.” Thank you in believing in us and belieivng in 3D.
"Well here's a big bag of rock salt" - Patton Oswalt
Hmm, do all three of these guys strike you as quite out of touch with normal people/filmgoers? Maybe it's just me who's so out of touch with what's popular in the mainstream.
But, Polar Express? Really? A bland movie with creepy cgi that really turned me off. & "who wouldn't want to see JP in 3d?"... me. And as if people weren't rude & obnoxious enough with their calling and texting and spilling soda or popcorn everywhere in theaters, now you want to serve them full meals? And, yes, i CAN eat a meal while sitting on my couch & watching a movie at home but I personally choose not to b/c I like to pay attention to the movie, not eating my meal. And I'm so freaking sick of all this 3d crap. I agree with Chris Nolan who basically said that the lighting/shadows/focus/depth of field/etc ALREADY replicate the 3d world & making the movie "3d" is redundant and kind of dumb.
If these guys are right about the future of cinema, then I fear cinema may not be in my future too much longer. (Which really saddens me, as I LOVE movies & the theatrical experience. I have a WONDERFUL arthouse theatre nearby that's been open since 1926 and has been fully restored with beautiful chandelliers, curtains, etc. They even have a wurlitzer organ that rises out of the stage before each show. And they show lots of classic films, all in 35 or sometimes even 70mm film! Maybe I'll just be going there more, & to the regular AMC type chains less... Which is really happening for me already anyway..)
Those theaters where you can eat a full meal while watching a movie have been around quite a while now. The one I saw pictures of had booths facing the screen instead of the traditional aisles.
I don't think I'd want to see horror movie at one though! ;)
Where were you in '77?
I like watching movies in a theater, but I hate crowds... quite a dilemma.
I've been to one, but it was a while ago. It's right next to my dad's house, probably should go there next time I'm around.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
Best theater crowd I knew was for Back to the Future 2. With the theater full of people who only laughed and yelled at the right moments, with the good spirit.
I never felt that way again watching a movie in theater.
Digital is like the invention of sound, 3D is like the invention of color. Sound changed everything in movies while color made it better. Just like when you see a 2D movie you’ll feel like you’re watching a black-and-white film. Ultimately everything will completely be in 3D.
Sound isn't better than silent, colour isn't better than B&W, and digital is not better than traditional. They are different mediums, but they are equal in every way, with their own particular strengths. All should coexist, with one never being discarded in favour of another.
Lucas can go screw himself. He's no artist; he's an fickle-minded vandal with a paint-filled Super Soaker.
I'm all for new tools to play with, and I like 3D. But I agree this should not replaced 2D.
In fact I think more movies could be shot in black and white. (begining of Casino Royal was black and white IIRC, and looked great!)
I'm just going to go on record and say I would fuckin' love to see Jurassic Park in 3D. Just as well as STAR WARS and Titanic.
DuracellEnergizer said:
Digital is like the invention of sound, 3D is like the invention of color. Sound changed everything in movies while color made it better. Just like when you see a 2D movie you’ll feel like you’re watching a black-and-white film. Ultimately everything will completely be in 3D.
Sound isn't better than silent, colour isn't better than B&W, and digital is not better than traditional. They are different mediums, but they are equal in every way, with their own particular strengths. All should coexist, with one never being discarded in favour of another.
Lucas can go screw himself. He's no artist; he's an fickle-minded vandal with a paint-filled Super Soaker.
So if it's his opinion that he likes 3D better, he should go screw himself?
The preservation of original works aside, artists will make the movies they want, and movies will be made according to what people want to see. If 90% percent of the population decides they now like 3D better (minus the epileptic seizures), then I guess most big dumb popcorn-flicks will be made in 3D and that's too bad for you ;)
canofhumdingers said:
I agree with Chris Nolan who basically said that the lighting/shadows/focus/depth of field/etc ALREADY replicate the 3d world & making the movie "3d" is redundant and kind of dumb.
Probably one of the stupidest opinions I've read about anything in a long time.
Hey, can I ask you a question: have you ever tried shutting one of your eyes (or blocking it with your hand if it's too difficult) and looking at your environment that way? The lighting, shadows and shapes, already make it appear 3D! Pfft, why need two eyes then?? Evolution was kinda dumb... but then again, it was blind, hahahahahahaa.
Hi, if you paint a cube on paper, it'll already look 3D without any fancy shadowing or whatever. If you take a picture of your room with your cheap 19$ steadycam, it'll still look, guess what, 3D. Shadowing is already provided by reality.
___________
/ / l
/ / l
/_________ / l
l l l
l l /
l l /
l l /
l_________ l/
*nothing oops*
I think Nolan wanted to say that having depth of field is redundant, because in real life it is your eyes that makes the focus on things. So having blurry parts on screen in a 3D movie looks nothing like "real life 3D".
I liked the 3D in Avatar, but having depth of field (making part of the picture blurry, to focus your eyes on something) was weird. I think in 3D movies the focus needs to be "infinite". Meaning no blur anywhere. That way the audience focus on what they want. Of course this kind of thing would lead to have the movies in two versions: one with depth of field, for a 2D exploitation, and one without, for the 3D exploitation. And I don't know if this is doable.
twooffour said:
canofhumdingers said:
I agree with Chris Nolan who basically said that the lighting/shadows/focus/depth of field/etc ALREADY replicate the 3d world & making the movie "3d" is redundant and kind of dumb.
Probably one of the stupidest opinions I've read about anything in a long time.
Hey, can I ask you a question: have you ever tried shutting one of your eyes (or blocking it with your hand if it's too difficult) and looking at your environment that way? The lighting, shadows and shapes, already make it appear 3D! Pfft, why need two eyes then?? Evolution was kinda dumb... but then again, it was blind, hahahahahahaa.
Hi, if you paint a cube on paper, it'll already look 3D without any fancy shadowing or whatever. If you take a picture of your room with your cheap 19$ steadycam, it'll still look, guess what, 3D. Shadowing is already provided by reality.
___________
/ / l
/ / l
/_________ / l
l l l
l l /
l l /
l l /
l_________ l/
The point (that you obviously didn't get) was that they're both simulations of real 3d. When you look at something real, yeah, two eyes allow you to perceive the depth b/c the thing is actually in 3 dimensional space. When watching a movie, it is NOT actually 3d & the 3rd dimension is being implied or simulated either with the clues that allow us to interpret real 3d naturally, or by artificially forcing a 3d simulation with multiple images & goofy glasses. My point still stands.
Prehaps I should try to find the actual quote as Nolan put it much more eloquently than I can.
I don't think it stands, because "artificially forcing a 3D simulation with multiple images and GOOFY glasses" sounds like a horribly biased and contemptful way of describing the simple fact of what's happening.
Somehow you think that stating the fact of the 3D effect in Avatar being an artificial illusion and pairing it up with manipulative assessments like "goofy glasses" will actually MAKE it sound goofy?
So yea, it's a simulation. An illusion. What's wrong about THAT in itself?
We all realize it's not an actual projected hologram (and I don't mean that kind of flat holograms that deceive you by having each pixel send slightly different signals to your eyes), the action still takes place on a flat screen. SO WHAT?
The "goofy glasses" still make you actually see things in 3D, by having your two eyes receive different images. This effect differs from an appeal to "natural interpretation", because even if you forget about it when watching 3D animation or actual footage (although I admit to even forgetting about it when watching 2D cartoons sometimes), you'll still see a FLAT IMAGE, no matter how many "shadowings" there are. You won't see a 3D image.
Which gives the "goofy glasses" an actual point and purpose. It's not redundant. And it's not "dumb".
TMBTM said:
I think Nolan wanted to say that having depth of field is redundant, because in real life it is your eyes that makes the focus on things. So having blurry parts on screen in a 3D movie looks nothing like "real life 3D".
I liked the 3D in Avatar, but having depth of field (making part of the picture blurry, to focus your eyes on something) was weird. I think in 3D movies the focus needs to be "infinite". Meaning no blur anywhere. That way the audience focus on what they want. Of course this kind of thing would lead to have the movies in two versions: one with depth of field, for a 2D exploitation, and one without, for the 3D exploitation. And I don't know if this is doable.
Interesting points, although I admit I've never really paid attention to depth of field in movies, and its effects on the viewer.
Does a lack of it (or at least, uttermost lack of it?) strongly impact the way one perceives a 2D image?
twooffour said:
So if it's his opinion that he likes 3D better, he should go screw himself?
No. His denigration of older methods of filmmaking and the either/or mentality behind it all is the reason he should go screw himself.
twooffour said:
I don't think it stands, because "artificially forcing a 3D simulation with multiple images and GOOFY glasses" sounds like a horribly biased and contemptful way of describing the simple fact of what's happening.
Somehow you think that stating the fact of the 3D effect in Avatar being an artificial illusion and pairing it up with manipulative assessments like "goofy glasses" will actually MAKE it sound goofy?
So yea, it's a simulation. An illusion. What's wrong about THAT in itself?
We all realize it's not an actual projected hologram (and I don't mean that kind of flat holograms that deceive you by having each pixel send slightly different signals to your eyes), the action still takes place on a flat screen. SO WHAT?
The "goofy glasses" still make you actually see things in 3D, by having your two eyes receive different images. This effect differs from an appeal to "natural interpretation", because even if you forget about it when watching 3D animation or actual footage (although I admit to even forgetting about it when watching 2D cartoons sometimes), you'll still see a FLAT IMAGE, no matter how many "shadowings" there are. You won't see a 3D image.
Which gives the "goofy glasses" an actual point and purpose. It's not redundant. And it's not "dumb".
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. And you're right, i'm unabashedly not a fan of 3d movies in general (although I did recently get to watch a 35mm 3D print of The Creature from the Black Lagoon, which was fantastic fun*). And come on, whether they work or not, you have to admit the glasses are goofy! They fit awkwardly, they look silly, they're goofy!
I did find the quotation from Nolan. You can read the rest of the ariticle here, but the bit I was thinking of follows.
"The truth is, I think it’s a misnomer to call it 3-D versus 2-D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it’s three-dimensional. … You know, 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2-D movie a ’2-D movie’ is a little misleading"
*I was actually quite surprised at how well the classic red/blue effect worked. The newer 3d stuff isn't really much better from what I've seen (granted, I haven't seen Avatar). And while I'm generally not a fan of "3d" movies, I certainly make exception for the chance to see one of my favorite classic horror films in the way it was originally released!
Thanks for the article. But really, the beef I had with your post is that you basically said (maybe not really meant it, but I ain't Professor X) that this 3D technology was "redundant" for the reasons stated.
And really, Nolan's quote there is a flat-out strawman. No one ever said that normal films in "2D" were, for all intents and purposes, "flat". Everyone gets the natural illusion of 3D. Most know about a few camera tricks like zoom and distance combos, depth of field / focus (if I remember correctly, in the Matrix movies they shot the Real and the Matrix scenes differently so that in the Real, there was a bigger contrast of focus between characters and background), lighting, camera movements, and blah blah blah.
We all know the difference between 3D animation and 2D cartoons. Everyone knows that live-action movies always deal with depth and 3D space.
So getting offended at 2D movies being called "flat" is as illogical and snobby as finding the need to mention that, in the so-called "black and white movies", there are actually shades off grey (and cinematography and lighting play a great role in that)!
When at the end of the day, a movie that is shown in 2D on a flat screen, without any ACTUAL 3D illusion based on feeding different signals to the eyes, is, well, FLAT, and providing this illusion DOES make a difference which you CAN tell from cinematography tricks.
This is basically all a giant case of pure hairsplitting. Sure, the glasses look goofy - but do you care when you have them on? ;)
I dunno. Nolan's objections seem to be rather of technical and practical nature, but in general, when I hear opinions like "great movies have been made for decades in 2D and no one felt the need for fancy stupid illusion tricks! this is just the new cheap Hollywood gimmick, ohh where's culture coming to" (i.e. objection against 3D without any real reasons about its current quality of execution, side-effects ect.), I usually just laugh, because it reminds me too much of the typical "grumpy ol' man" who just feels the need to assert that some "old school" thing was definitely better than this new crap.
Oh, what are these guys doing with all the amplifiers and electronic instruments... this is all mediocre, now the old masters with their real, acoustic instruments, now that was the real deal!
Guess I'm just carrying too much baggage on my back, eh?
Basically, as already pointed out in this thread, different stuff has advantages and disadvantages. From what I've heard about 3D (incl. I thing Avatar) is that it can cause unpleasant side-effects in more sensitive viewers due to the eyes receiving different information in an unusual way, or something like that.
I think it was headaches and slight nausea in the lighter cases; could be that those prone to epileptic seizures weren't recommended to watch 3D, but I'm not sure right now. Don't quote me on this last paragraph :D
DuracellEnergizer said:
twooffour said:
So if it's his opinion that he likes 3D better, he should go screw himself?
No. His denigration of older methods of filmmaking and the either/or mentality behind it all is the reason he should go screw himself.
okay :)
