Q: The film was great in 3D, but how much of the experience do you lose watching it in 2D?
Cameron: That's always been an issue with 3D. The question is how much of the experience do you lose when you listen to a six track or a 5.1 surround stereo movie when you watch it on a two track? You know, there's a diminishment. It's measurable. Does it really hurt a well-made film? Does it in any way diminish a good performance or good lighting or good visual effects? I don't think so. So I think that we need to keep 3D in balance. Yes it's an improvement to the viewing, but I think that ninety-eight percent of my focus as a filmmaker is on, you know, the writing and performance, the design, shot composition, lighting, sound mixing, all of those things. All of which are equal across the two platforms. And you know, we're very proud of the 2D version of the film that we put out. The prints are all made from original DNs, the digital negatives, so they're not made from a dupe master, so they're absolutely grain free. They're better than any of the prints that we put out on "Titanic." The colors are beautiful, it's a bright, clear, colorful presentation of the movie. And so I think you can't go wrong in either medium. But I think it really comes down to consumer choice. You know, people want to pay the extra money for a bigger plasma screen, they can watch their movies at home, their DVDs, on a bigger screen. If they want to spend less money, they'll have a smaller screen. You know, if you want to go to a 3D movie, you've got to pay the up charge of an extra couple of two or three dollars, you know, to get the glasses and so on. So these are consumer choices now at this point. So I think of the 3D as the premium experience of the film and the 2D as the excellent base level presentation of the film.