or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Titanic 3D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Titanic 3D

post #1 of 314
Thread Starter 
Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.
post #2 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddster25 View Post

Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.

Nonetheless, I'm sure with Cameron's name on it, the conversion would be really good. I would by it just to see the depth. Also, the flooding halls scene would look great for pop out.. Is this really happening or is this just a question?
post #3 of 314
It's being released theatrically in 3-D on April 6, 2012. Cameron is very involved in the conversion.
post #4 of 314
For 3D to keep "evolving" I would say that yes, it is necessary. I'm a fan of 3D, and don't mind if everything is in 3D. I think this is to Cameron's point that even movies that don't fall into the action or animation categories are more enjoyable in 3D.
post #5 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddster25 View Post

Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.

Add anything to the STORY?? While I am not Titanic's biggest fan (which is probably why I don't see the need for it to be converted), saying that it "wouldn't add anything to the story" is [insert some non-offensive word for "stupid"]

3D never adds anything to the story (except maybe Tron). Neither does color (for the most part), surround sound, room-shaking bass, cinemascope, or pretty much anything else us home theater heads crave in our systems. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make the film-watching experience even more enjoyable.

Actually, I just though of a reason why I'd like to see Titanic in 3d. One of biggest qualms with the movie, effects-wise, (and probably every movie up until Avatar, actually) was the incredibly poor use of water set in a miniature scale (i.e. when the ship is sinking, it's obvious, IMO, that the bubbling water is not at the scale it would be if a giant ship were actually sinking.) So, perhaps the 3d will give a more realistic sense of depth and scale to those types of scenes.
post #6 of 314
I don't understand the brouhaha. Same movie, same actors, same dialog, etc. Only difference is the conversion to 3D. No real difference to when studios convert mono films into surround sound films for home video releases. Or when they convert 5.1 theaterical releases to 7.1 for their HV release.

In both cases for 2012, the film conversion is being overseen by the original film makers; Lucas and Cameron.

I would love to see Ridley Scott do a 2D to 3D converson of Blade Runner.
post #7 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddster25 View Post

Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.

I think you question ties into a bigger one, namely "should ANY movies be remade in 3D" ?

It will be interesting the see both the technical and commercial success of converted 3D efforts like Titanic, Star Wars, etc. I thought Avatar was great in 3D but it was conceived and filmed that way. Maybe it all will depend on the success of the 2D to 3D conversion...

John
post #8 of 314
I think it's a dumb idea. That movie was one of the longest and most made fun of movies ever. Plus, it was just out like what, 15 years ago or something? If it was releasing it to a new generation it'd be more understandable, but I don't think people born since this movie was initially released will have any interest in seeing it. If they want to see it, they'll have seen it already at home and I don't think 3D will be enough to justify a whole rewatch.

Plus, not trying to start a sexist discussion, but, most of the people who loved this movie were women. And it's been my personal experience that women are impartial to 3D. It's a good movie and all, but... eh
post #9 of 314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandit7319 View Post

I think it's a dumb idea. That movie was one of the longest and most made fun of movies ever. Plus, it was just out like what, 15 years ago or something? If it was releasing it to a new generation it'd be more understandable, but I don't think people born since this movie was initially released will have any interest in seeing it. If they want to see it, they'll have seen it already at home and I don't think 3D will be enough to justify a whole rewatch.

Plus, not trying to start a sexist discussion, but, most of the people who loved this movie were women. And it's been my personal experience that women are impartial to 3D. It's a good movie and all, but... eh

Agreed!
post #10 of 314
I am for it. The was made fun of all the way to the bank that's for sure.

Next time I screen it? I will probably give it a conversion to 3D just for grins.
post #11 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandit7319 View Post

If they want to see it, they'll have seen it already at home and I don't think 3D will be enough to justify a whole rewatch.

But doesn't that in some way apply to all previously released movies? I think I counted once that, between VCR, DVD's and various "special" editions, I owned 7 copies of Star Wars. And it's had innumerable showings on TV. But Lucas thinks enough of its 3D potential that he's spending big bucks to convert. Both he and Cameron must have faith in the financial model...

John
post #12 of 314
I really could care less (Titanic just isn't my kind of movie) but wasn't Cameron railing against 2D>3D conversions?
post #13 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenp View Post

for 3d to keep "evolving" i would say that yes, it is necessary. I'm a fan of 3d, and don't mind if everything is in 3d. I think this is to cameron's point that even movies that don't fall into the action or animation categories are more enjoyable in 3d.

+1

I will catch it in the theater and if it is as good as Alice, I will buy the 3D Blu-ray!
post #14 of 314
It's about the $$$
post #15 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaborik View Post

It's about the $$$

LOL - isn't that the bottom line for Hollywood?
post #16 of 314
I would rather see Cameron convert Terminator 2: Judgment Day to 3D to be honest.
post #17 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

I really could care less (Titanic just isn't my kind of movie) but wasn't Cameron railing against 2D>3D conversions?

He rails against quickie post-production conversions for new movies being made today, when they should be shot with the 3D camera he built (and receives licensing fees for the use of) instead. But he seems to think that it's fine and dandy to convert catalog titles, so long as enough time and effort is put into doing the conversion "right."
post #18 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongis View Post

I would rather see Cameron convert Terminator 2: Judgment Day to 3D to be honest.

Now that would be cool.
post #19 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

He rails against quickie post-production conversions for new movies being made today, when they should be shot with the 3D camera he built (and receives licensing fees for the use of) instead. But he seems to think that it's fine and dandy to convert catalog titles, so long as enough time and effort is put into doing the conversion "right."

Why do I sense disapproval in your tone when someone like Criterion is rightly praised for releasing deserving SD catalog titles on Bluray? Why is Cameron's conversion to a new format greeted with so much skepticism and labeled as so mercenary?

John
post #20 of 314
James Cameron slams 3D film conversion

Quote:
The film-maker has revealed he is planning to convert his 1997 blockbuster Titanic into a 3D release, but said it will be different because he plans to take his time instead of doing a "slapdash conversion".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8586973.stm

This was his reaction to the 2D to 3D conversion of CLASH OF THE TITANS
post #21 of 314
All a matter of taste of course, but for me it means it will now suck in another dimension.

S A M 33
post #22 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robert View Post

Why do I sense disapproval in your tone when someone like Criterion is rightly praised for releasing deserving SD catalog titles on Bluray? Why is Cameron's conversion to a new format greeted with so much skepticism and labeled as so mercenary?

Converting old 2D movies to 3D is no different than colorizing black & white movies, or adding terrible new CGI effects to movies made in the '70s. Even if it's done technically well, it's just not what the movie was ever intended to be.

So long as Cameron agrees to release the original 2D version of the movie at the same time, I'm OK with it. (Unlike some other fillmmakers who try to pretend that the original versions of their movies were "rough drafts" never intended for public view.) Even so, I don't have to like this mentality that all old movies need to be "modernized" to make them palatable to today's attention-deficit audience.

Imagine if someone decided that all those brush strokes visible in The Last Supper were too "old fashioned," and the painting would be a lot better if we could just airbrush them out and make it look like it was created in Photoshop. Once it's "fixed" that way, we can just throw that old junky version in the trash.
post #23 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Even so, I don't have to like this mentality that all old movies need to be "modernized" to make them palatable to today's attention-deficit audience.

Does your dislike include SD movies "modernized" as Bluray releases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Imagine if someone decided that all those brush strokes visible in The Last Supper were too "old fashioned," and the painting would be a lot better if we could just airbrush them out and make it look like it was created in Photoshop. Once it's "fixed" that way, we can just throw that old junky version in the trash.

As I'm sure you know, "The Last Supper" has been restored several times since 1498, most recently in a process that started in 1979 and ended in 1999...

John
post #24 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Converting old 2D movies to 3D is no different than colorizing black & white movies, or adding terrible new CGI effects to movies made in the '70s. Even if it's done technically well, it's just not what the movie was ever intended to be.

So long as Cameron agrees to release the original 2D version of the movie at the same time, I'm OK with it. (Unlike some other fillmmakers who try to pretend that the original versions of their movies were "rough drafts" never intended for public view.) Even so, I don't have to like this mentality that all old movies need to be "modernized" to make them palatable to today's attention-deficit audience.

Imagine if someone decided that all those brush strokes visible in The Last Supper were too "old fashioned," and the painting would be a lot better if we could just airbrush them out and make it look like it was created in Photoshop. Once it's "fixed" that way, we can just throw that old junky version in the trash.

AFAIK, both TITANIC and the STAR WARS re-releases in 3D will only be in 3D. No 2D re-releases.

Guess we will have to wait to see if the public embraces these conversions. One thing we do know is that both will get the very best conversion money can buy.
post #25 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

AFAIK, both TITANIC and the STAR WARS re-releases in 3D will only be in 3D. No 2D re-releases.

Guess we will have to wait to see if the public embraces these conversions. One thing we do know is that both will get the very best conversion money can buy.

I think he means on blu-ray. Don't think there's any chance of Titanic NOT being released on 2d blu-ray.
post #26 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post

I think he means on blu-ray. Don't think there's any chance of Titanic NOT being released on 2d blu-ray.

Bill Hunt has said that the BD of TITANIC will be released approx. 2 weeks after the April 6 2012 3D premier.

Quote:


MORE interesting from our standpoint, however, is that multiple industry sources have now checked in with us to say that a Blu-ray release of the film (2D for sure and maybe 3D too) will happen a week or two later
post #27 of 314
Cameron is doing this for one reason and one reason only. To further extend the box office and to ensure he'll always have the 2 highest grossing movies of all time... Titanic in 3D? Really? If there was a list of movies that dont need to be in 3D, Titanic would be near the top of the list. Im a huge 3D fan, but this is ridiculous, and I hope it fails.
post #28 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by timtationx View Post

...Titanic in 3D? Really? If there was a list of movies that dont need to be in 3D, Titanic would be near the top of the list.

Perhaps you think adding 3D with its more immersive "you are there" element to "disaster" type of movies is a bad idea? That's kinda silly.
Quote:



Im a huge 3D fan, but this is ridiculous, and I hope it fails.

I think you're a Titanic hater and letting that feeling cloud your judgment. I would argue that 3D fans in general would like to see Titanic in 3D be hugely successful.
post #29 of 314
I'll watch Titanic for sure, Star Wars same...
post #30 of 314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfergie View Post

I'll watch Titanic for sure, Star Wars same...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'll watch Star Wars in 3D. That should be EPIC.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Titanic 3D