Ebert gives Titanic 3D's 3D the ol' thumbs-down

[Gaith]

Not at all surprising - with only rare exceptions (The Polar Express, Avatar, Hugo, and Immortals are a few), Ebert has inveighed against 3D, and here he is taking on Big Jim re: Titanic:

Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is retrofitted 2D. Case closed.

But not quite. There's more to it than that. 3D causes a noticeable loss in the brightness coming from the screen. Some say as much as 20 percent. If you saw an ordinary film dimmed that much, you might complain to the management. Here you're supposed to be grateful you had the opportunity to pay a surcharge for this defacement. If you're alert to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses, they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness. I know why the film is in 3D. It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby way to treat a masterpiece.

Again, not a surprising verdict, but a shame nonetheless. If even Big Jim can't make retrofitted 3D work, maybe the case really is, as Ebert says, closed.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Avatar was a fun experience in 3-D. I had no problems with it as a film-going experience, even given its length.

I went to see Phantom Menace and 3-D and did enjoy the restraint in its use. Still, for some reason, i had a huge headache when it was over. Really. I'm afraid if I see Titanic in 3-D (a film that I generally like) I'm not sure if my head will be able to take it. I guess if i got it on blu-ray with sharp colors, I'd probably appreciate it more. Maybe the difference is that Avatar was indeed meant for 3-D so maybe something about it didn't bug me as even a good retrofit did.

[J. Allen]

The thing is, I loved Titanic back in '97 when I saw it in theaters. I'd pay a regular ticket price to see it again in theaters, as it's 2D self. But a 100% price markup for a 3D retrofit? Nope.

[CorporalCaptain]

This is no surprise, and is exactly what I would expect, based on the 3D trailer for Titanic that I saw, which was totally shitty. It looked like 2.1D, if that.

[Jax]

2D films being made into 3D has always struck me as a stupid idea. It needs to be that from the start like Avatar or not at all.

[Trekker4747]

Yeah, I never understood the idea of converting 2D into 3D as it's just really faking things beyond faking things and much more of the "colorforms 3D" that I hate so much.

However, it has been my understanding Cameron was using the best possible techniques for converting Titanic and none-the-less given that this April is the 100th anniversary of the ship's sinking and I love the movie Titanic I'll go see it this spring 3D or no, I'd love the chance to see the movie again on the big screen.

[Robert Maxwell]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Yeah, I never understood the idea of converting 2D into 3D as it's just really faking things beyond faking things and much more of the "colorforms 3D" that I hate so much.

However, it has been my understanding Cameron was using the best possible techniques for converting Titanic and none-the-less given that this April is the 100th anniversary of the ship's sinking and I love the movie Titanic I'll go see it this spring 3D or no, I'd love the chance to see the movie again on the big screen.

Conversions are only done so that the theater can charge more for tickets. There's really no other reason to do it since it adds so little to the experience when done in post. It's just a naked money grab.

[Tosk]

Considering how little even real 3D adds to a film, I'm not surprised Ebert gave a conversion thumbs down. "Best technology" or not, it's still a film shot in 2D for 2D.

[FordSVT]

I can't wait to see what PJ does with The Hobbit in 3D. I'm going to go out of my way to ensure I see it in a theatre with the proper projector lenses and brightness too.

[JarodRussell]

So the conversion to 3D made the story, acting and dialogue bad?

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

FordSVT wrote:

---

I can't wait to see what PJ does with The Hobbit in 3D. I'm going to go out of my way to ensure I see it in a theatre with the proper projector lenses and brightness too.

I heard he's filming it with double frame rate. I am still wondering why (don't take that as a criticism yet) but after watching the trailer, I'm wondering why it's necessary. The images moved fine at the normal frame rate.

[JarodRussell]

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

I heard he's filming it with double frame rate. I am still wondering why (don't take that as a criticism yet) but after watching the trailer, I'm wondering why it's necessary. The images moved fine at the normal frame rate.

Did you watch in 2D or 3D?

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

2-D
I see what you're saying. I'm just thinking that clarity is one thing, but I miss traditional film and film techniques

[CaptainCanada]

Most of the reviews I've seen of the 3D transfer for Titanic were extremely praiseworthy, even from reviewers who overall aren't fond of the process.

[Jax]

FordSVT wrote:

---

I can't wait to see what PJ does with The Hobbit in 3D. I'm going to go out of my way to ensure I see it in a theatre with the proper projector lenses and brightness too.

Hobbit, 2-D for me, among all my other movies this year I like the price hike for 3-D. The only movie I would consider 3D for is the Avatar sequels.