I have deep respect for this guy. He really cares about these things and makes a...

ojbyrne · on March 25, 2012

Um, I don't think "not understood" is correct. More like not wanting to be hammered over the head with his simplistic, fable-like, morals.

ojbyrne · on March 25, 2012

I should have been clearer. I still like his movies, but they're not terribly deep. Entertaining for sure.

What he's doing now is obviously pretty damn impressive.

sek · on March 26, 2012

What i meant was inspiring for exploration, deep sea, the space and so on.

The stories in his movie is often very mainstream, but look at the panorama scenes he makes. He really cares about impressive nature and unknown worlds. I really enjoyed Sanctum because of this, these deep caves are really impressive. The story is just something that makes is accessible for the masses. No theater would show a nature documentation and he wouldn't get the funds to make them.

MrJagil · on March 26, 2012

Are you saying that what Cameron really wanted to do is documentaries?

also: "No theater would show a nature documentation" Remember Earth?

sek · on March 26, 2012

Maybe, probably both, but his approach to create popular movies around is the most intelligent way.

Earth was a failure and if something similar with that budget will be made soon is questionable.

Budget: €30,000,000 (estimated)

Gross: $32,001,863

Cameron can do anything he want's with any budget since decades and earned himself a fortune to do things on his own.

DanBC · on March 26, 2012

> No theater would show a nature documentation and he wouldn't get the funds to make them.

March of the penguins?

InclinedPlane · on March 25, 2012

Some of his movies are good. Some of his movies are intentionally crafted solely for popularity (Titanic, for example). When doing so results in multi-billion dollar revenues can you really blame the guy?