Titanic 3D (1997) Blu-Ray - December 31, 2012 - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 72 Old 04-19-2012, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,432
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Some of the CGI and composites in Titanic looked atrocious even back in 1997. Personally, I'd welcome some enhancements in that regard. That aerial shot with the polygonal CG captain and crew walking on deck, looking like they just stepped out of Dire Straits' "Money for Nothin" video... eek. Since he went to the trouble of converting the entire movie to 3D, I don't see why he wouldn't take the time to fix things like that while he was at it.

Y'know, I've never minded that shot at all. People have ragged on it for a decade + change, but it still looked good to me in IMAX. I spotted details I'd never seen before, even. That said, the shot of the boat in front of the Titanic as she moves out of Southampton was pretty poor, with the blank-faced CG character looking kinda freaky.

As for The Abyss, Cameron still stands by the theatrical version. The long version wasn't testing well at all and he made the decision to cut it down. He had final cut, which is why he'll never call that (or any other) long version a 'director's cut'. In his own words, the Special Edition edit is "merely another one", i.e. an alternate cut to stand alongside the theatrical version.
Geoff D is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 72 Old 04-20-2012, 05:47 AM
Member
 
WarrenD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Huh. Is this not the man who gave us...

Aliens - Special Edition
The Abyss - Special Edition
Terminator 2: Judgement Day - Special Edition
Avatar - Special Edition
Avatar - Extended Collector's Edition



Some of the CGI and composites in Titanic looked atrocious even back in 1997. Personally, I'd welcome some enhancements in that regard. That aerial shot with the polygonal CG captain and crew walking on deck, looking like they just stepped out of Dire Straits' "Money for Nothin" video... eek. Since he went to the trouble of converting the entire movie to 3D, I don't see why he wouldn't take the time to fix things like that while he was at it.

I understand Josh, but if he improved the CGI then he would be going into the George Lucas territory and get a backlash.

Me personally, I don't mind an alternate version as long as the original version is included unaltered. Real choice for the modern consumer. That way we have may versions of a film we like. What I don't like though, is if a film is altered from the original look and the original is effectively banned from being bought. I won't mention the film title I am referring to but you can guess.

I mean, even if James Cameron did update the CGI, in 20 years from now, people will say it looks dated. It is a never ending issue as better technology presents itself all the time.

I admire the fact that he is leaving it as is. That's how it was released and people loved the film anyway.
WarrenD is offline  
post #63 of 72 Old 04-20-2012, 06:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,432
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenD View Post

I admire the fact that he is leaving it as is. That's how it was released and people loved the film anyway.

Indeed. It's a situation not too dissimilar from a certain beloved space opera, only its creator cannot bear to see the movie as it was.
Geoff D is offline  
post #64 of 72 Old 04-20-2012, 06:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenD View Post

Me personally, I don't mind an alternate version as long as the original version is included unaltered. Real choice for the modern consumer. That way we have may versions of a film we like.

See I'm not sure about that. What is a "modern" consumer anyway? Someone who is not gonna be much "modern" 10 years from now. Besides, I don't consider myself a consumer when it comes to movies. I don't mind having different flavors for a hamburger or a car, but a movie is different. I think as an audience, or as consumers depending on how it's perceived, we don't get to dictate how a film should be. The filmmaker(s) is. Then it's up to me to like it or not like it. Star Wars is not a film anymore, it's really a product, and that's a shame. I think James Cameron sees his movies as 'finished entities' and like you said, I also admire him for leaving it as it is. He could even try to 'update' the sinking of the ship, which occured slightly differently from what is depicted on the film, but yet he won't. (changing stars in the sky or minor tweaks that don't affect the film's continuity is one thing, but we all know 'someone else' doesn't hesitate to change the continuity of his space opera instead of leaving it as it is) Like I said, Titanic is a movie from 1997, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why are we still enjoying much older classics with all their technical weaknesses then? Titanic is a movie that will stand the test of time, and luckily its somewhat dated CGI by today's standards has nothing to do with it. That's probably why it's still making money at the box office, people don't only want to see it in 3D, they just want to see it again.
Morpheo is offline  
post #65 of 72 Old 04-20-2012, 11:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I think James Cameron sees his movies as 'finished entities' and like you said, I also admire him for leaving it as it is.

Except, of course, for changing the whole movie to 3D.

I would of course prefer for the movie's original theatrical cut (in 2D) to be preserved as it was, without revisions. But if he's taking the huge step of making a separate 3D version, he might as well go whole hog and fix up some of the other issues with the movie too, IMO.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #66 of 72 Old 04-20-2012, 11:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Except, of course, for changing the whole movie to 3D.

But it's still the same movie dammit. Avatar 3D is the same movie as Avatar 2D.
Morpheo is offline  
post #67 of 72 Old 04-20-2012, 01:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

But it's still the same movie dammit. Avatar 3D is the same movie as Avatar 2D.

In order to convert the 2D movie into 3D, Cameron has to use computers to artificially generate a separate "eye view" for every frame. Literally, 50% of the movie is new*. If he's going to computer-generate half the movie anyway, what's the difference if he updates some of the other CGI too?



*OK, some of the information between the left and right eye views is redundant, so it's more like 30% of the movie is new. Still...

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #68 of 72 Old 04-20-2012, 02:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
skibum5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 26
nice it's finally coming out on blu-ray

great to see it on the big screen again

It was total madness when it came out in 1997. I remember for weeks the lines were wrapping around the theater, week after week, never seen anything like it (other than for the original Star Wars).

My theater was totally jammed for the 3D re-release, playing on two of the largest screens, packed right to the crane your neck seats.
skibum5000 is offline  
post #69 of 72 Old 04-20-2012, 09:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
stumlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

In order to convert the 2D movie into 3D, Cameron has to use computers to artificially generate a separate "eye view" for every frame. Literally, 50% of the movie is new*. If he's going to computer-generate half the movie anyway, what's the difference if he updates some of the other CGI too?



*OK, some of the information between the left and right eye views is redundant, so it's more like 30% of the movie is new. Still...

Well, doing it this way, the 2D version remains intact, and we also have a 3D version as well... If the 3D conversion required manipulation of the 2D version, there would be reason to complain.

At the same time, I wouldn't be opposed to updated cgi...

I can *somewhat* understand why Lucas wanted to change his movies. When he watches them,he notices things that just irk him... it's similar to reading an old paper you wrote or an old drawing you did... it's a perfectionist view... Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if after the 3D releases of each movie come out , he decides to do remakes of all 6... just picture it.. justin bieber as luke skywalker

Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia, activate the machine!
stumlad is offline  
post #70 of 72 Old 04-20-2012, 09:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MEC2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Frisco, TX (D/FW area)
Posts: 1,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post


Funny. I think they've finally figured out why they didn't see the iceberg - the unusual cold and clear air created an inverted thermal mirage which obscured the lower horizon and rendered the iceberg invisible/obscured. Talk about crap luck.
MEC2 is offline  
post #71 of 72 Old 04-21-2012, 07:58 AM
Member
 
WarrenD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

See I'm not sure about that. What is a "modern" consumer anyway? Someone who is not gonna be much "modern" 10 years from now. Besides, I don't consider myself a consumer when it comes to movies. I don't mind having different flavors for a hamburger or a car, but a movie is different. I think as an audience, or as consumers depending on how it's perceived, we don't get to dictate how a film should be. The filmmaker(s) is. Then it's up to me to like it or not like it. Star Wars is not a film anymore, it's really a product, and that's a shame. I think James Cameron sees his movies as 'finished entities' and like you said, I also admire him for leaving it as it is. He could even try to 'update' the sinking of the ship, which occured slightly differently from what is depicted on the film, but yet he won't. (changing stars in the sky or minor tweaks that don't affect the film's continuity is one thing, but we all know 'someone else' doesn't hesitate to change the continuity of his space opera instead of leaving it as it is) Like I said, Titanic is a movie from 1997, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why are we still enjoying much older classics with all their technical weaknesses then? Titanic is a movie that will stand the test of time, and luckily its somewhat dated CGI by today's standards has nothing to do with it. That's probably why it's still making money at the box office, people don't only want to see it in 3D, they just want to see it again.

Modern consumer ( Because films are commercially exploited by studios) was meant in reference when the film studio listens to the needs and wishes of fans. And as such, adapt their approach to the greater sophistication of the modern audience.

I said it in the context that the original version should be available unaltered too just in case there are those who prefer that to the redux versions. Not that I am comparing like for like, but as an analogy, when Coca-Cola created Diet Coke, they still made original Coca Cola. That serves the needs of both parties. It gives choice.

An example would be Star Wars, but also Bram Stoker's Dracula. Neither are available on Blu Ray in the way they were shown in theatre's originally. Both are altered and despite fan protests, nothing is done. The counter argument by some ignores the fact that many were used to for years of the films in question looking a certain way yet those opinions are discarded as null and void.

Unfortunately this attitude from the studios by ignoring those fan wishes, is that fans will try and obtain a HD Version of the unaltered film illegally because the proper means were effectively blocked. So the studio loses out as well. Ironic, because those fans were willing to buy the original legally.

With that said, I certainly believe a director can do what they please with their film but, the director should respect the wishes of those who made the films a success by seeing them on original release. So a middle ground needs to be adopted. Yes, we should not dictate how a film should be but then neither should they dictate that the new version is better with the screw you attitude if you prefer the old one.

What I don't like is when I am forced to adopt the new version with no alternative available.
WarrenD is offline  
post #72 of 72 Old 04-22-2012, 01:40 AM
Member
 
John Stockton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEC2 View Post

Funny. I think they've finally figured out why they didn't see the iceberg - the unusual cold and clear air created an inverted thermal mirage which obscured the lower horizon and rendered the iceberg invisible/obscured. Talk about crap luck.


Just saw a great documentary on youtube which explains the whole thing in detail. I recommend everyone to watch it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWnwIQQ0mJc
John Stockton is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off