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

Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Gaith, Feb 22, 2012.

  1. Gaith

    Gaith Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    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.
     
  2. Flying Spaghetti Monster

    Flying Spaghetti Monster Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Location:
    Flying Spaghetti Western
    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.
     
  3. Coloratura

    Coloratura Snuggle Princess Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    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.
     
  4. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    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. :thumbdown:
     
  5. Jax

    Jax Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    The Broken Kingdom of Great Britain
    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.
     
  6. Trekker4747

    Trekker4747 Boldly going... Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Location:
    Kansas City
    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.
     
  7. Robert Maxwell

    Robert Maxwell so far this is a dumb future Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Location:
    comments 2 my butt
    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.
     
  8. Tosk

    Tosk Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    On the run.
    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.
     
  9. FordSVT

    FordSVT Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2001
    Location:
    Atlantic Canada
    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.
     
  10. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    So the conversion to 3D made the story, acting and dialogue bad?
     
  11. Flying Spaghetti Monster

    Flying Spaghetti Monster Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Location:
    Flying Spaghetti Western
    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.
     
  12. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Did you watch in 2D or 3D?
     
  13. Flying Spaghetti Monster

    Flying Spaghetti Monster Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Location:
    Flying Spaghetti Western
    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
     
  14. CaptainCanada

    CaptainCanada Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    Charlottetown, PEI, Canada
    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.
     
  15. Jax

    Jax Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    The Broken Kingdom of Great Britain
    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.
     
  16. Allyn Gibson

    Allyn Gibson Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Location:
    South Pennsyltucky
    It's because the human brain processes images faster than 24 frames per second, and 48 frames per second for 3-D gives the image a more natural flow and cuts down on blur and strobing (which are fine in 2D but can cause headaches in 3D). Jackson's discussed it a few times, such as here.

    James Cameron independently decided to shoot Avatar 2 at 48 frames per second, and he was blindsided by Jackson's decision to do The Hobbit at 48 as he had hoped to be the first director to make a 48fps movie.
     
  17. Owain Taggart

    Owain Taggart Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Ontario, Canada

    Agreed. There are very few movies that warrant being seen in 3D, those of which have been planned ahead of time with 3D in mind, where each and every shot counts as far as composition goes. The problem with post-conversion is that it has none of that, and all you get is an aproximation, and unless my eyes are not seeing it correctly, you get a layered effect rather than true 3D anyway. I'd add Tintin to the list of worthy movies to be seen in 3D. I felt that it had the best 3D since Avatar. Everything about it was framed in such a way to ulitize 3D to its utmost potential.
     
  18. Tosk

    Tosk Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    On the run.
    No. It's the 3D he gave the thumbs down to.
     
  19. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    He recommends not buying a ticket, get it?
     
  20. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Cameron (or, at least, the studio backing him here) has spent a lot of time and money on the process. However, from what I glimpsed in the 3D trailer in front of Hugo, the conversion was typically poor. If this is the best Cameron can do, I hope his intention to convert Terminator 2: Judgment Day into 3D never comes to fruition.