Originally Posted by nick_danger
Call it what you want, using complementary colors in a film is nothing new. "Steel" blue and tan/orange is not really any better than "T&O". All I can say is that, technically wrong or right, it's no surprise that a lot of people point to Cameron as the father of this fad.
"Steely" blue and teal are not the same color. Cameron's early movies were notable for their steely blue scheme. The current teal fad didn't kick in as a major problem in Hollywood until the advent of Digital Intermediates in the early 2000s.
Yes, I understand what you're saying that blue can be used in a "complimentary" fashion against an opposite color just as teal can. And you obviously feel that this is just as bad as teal-and-orange. However, in my opinion (which is just that, my
opinion), teal is a very gaudy and obnoxious color that draws attention to itself in a way that blue does not. In our everyday lives, teal is actually not all that prevalent a color in our interaction with the world, yet practically every
movie made today is doused with it. It's an eye sore.
In a few years, another color fad will take over Hollywood, and suddenly every movie will be flourescent pink and lime green, and James Cameron will systematically set about remastering all of his old movies into pink and green. ("I always wanted the ocean in Titanic to be lime green. That was always my original intent.") Some people will defend it and think it looks cool, while some of us will feel like our eyes are being stabbed out.