• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

TITANIC being rereleased in 3D in theaters on 2012

Dream

Dream

Admiral
Admiral
Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox and Lightstorm Entertainment jointly announced today that James Cameron’s “TITANIC” will be re-released worldwide on April 6, 2012.

The release, which marks the 100th anniversary of the Titanic setting sail (April 10th), will present the film in 3D for the first time ever.
Click to expand...

http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/3d-restored-titanic-released-worldwide-april-6-2012/

I can't believe how Cameron is cashing in on a human tragedy. The movie is pretty dumb and it's also going to be in useless 3D.

I'm not sure what kind of audience is going to see this. :rommie:
 
As a Titanic buff since about a decade before the movie was released, I'll be the first to admit the love story is nothing new but seeing the ship I'd read about recreated for the big screen and the tragedy brought to life to a reasonably accurate extent was pretty damn impressive.

If the 3D actually improves the quality of the film, more power to it, but to simply write it off seems pretty uncharitable.

What if proceeds from the film were going to the descendants of the original passengers? Would it still be cashing in on a tragedy?
 
Is this the same James Cameron who slags off other companies/producers/directors who convert 2D movies to 3D because it's only any good if it's shot in 3D with the special cameras etc to start with?
 
Not seen it.

Any film where someone thought "hey, a Celine Dion song would be great right here!" is, by definition, worthless trash.
 
Pingfah said:
Not seen it.

Any film where someone thought "hey, a Celine Dion song would be great right here!" is, by definition, worthless trash.
Click to expand...

actually, there's a pretty good 90-minute to two-hour movie in there. Of course, a cursory glance at the runtime on the box will flag up the problem with this...
 
I'll probably go, actually.

I have very fond memories of that movie. Tween me was all about Leonardo DiCaprio. And I'm pretty sure I played Celine Dion's Let's Talk About Love album so much the tape wore out.:rommie:. I can probably still recite large amounts of Titanic by heart if I really try.

Now I'm all nostalgic.

Yeah, I will definitely go and see this.
 
Lonemagpie said:
Pingfah said:
Not seen it.

Any film where someone thought "hey, a Celine Dion song would be great right here!" is, by definition, worthless trash.
Click to expand...

actually, there's a pretty good 90-minute to two-hour movie in there. Of course, a cursory glance at the runtime on the box will flag up the problem with this...
Click to expand...

Sounds like a fan-edit might be in order.

SiorX said:
And I'm pretty sure I played Celine Dion's Let's Talk About Love album so much the tape wore out.:rommie:.
Click to expand...

That must have been a relief.
 
Lonemagpie said:
Is this the same James Cameron who slags off other companies/producers/directors who convert 2D movies to 3D because it's only any good if it's shot in 3D with the special cameras etc to start with?
Click to expand...
He said in one of his commentaries around the time Avatar came out that 3D versions of non-3D movies were never going to be quite as good, but that he wanted to try and make it work with Titanic in "2.8D", as he called it.

Cameron understands the technology better than anybody else, so I'm interested to see how he does with it. Still a big fan of the film.
 
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.
Click to expand...
source
The cinema screenings will be a 1-3 week 'event' but the Blu-ray is the real focus next April.
 
Pingfah said:
SiorX said:
And I'm pretty sure I played Celine Dion's Let's Talk About Love album so much the tape wore out.:rommie:.
Click to expand...

That must have been a relief.
Click to expand...

Haters gonna hate. But 13-yr-old me A) loved that album and B) was an adorable little pudding of whom I am retrospectively very fond, so it gets a pass from me. :)

Also, I'm now so immunised against insipid lyrics that I can even read Wordsworth without cringing. So I reckon it stood to me.
 
Last edited:
Lonemagpie said:
Pingfah said:
Not seen it.

Any film where someone thought "hey, a Celine Dion song would be great right here!" is, by definition, worthless trash.
Click to expand...

actually, there's a pretty good 90-minute to two-hour movie in there. Of course, a cursory glance at the runtime on the box will flag up the problem with this...
Click to expand...

Yes. Like Pearl Harbor, it's a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours.
 
Someone explain to me how you can release a movie in 3D that wasn't filmed in 3D originally? The only thing they can do is re-do the CGI in 3D. In which case, that makes the movie partially 3D. Misleading if you ask me.

Same applies to the StarWars Prequel 3D release.
 
Goliath said:
Lonemagpie said:
Pingfah said:
Not seen it.

Any film where someone thought "hey, a Celine Dion song would be great right here!" is, by definition, worthless trash.
Click to expand...

actually, there's a pretty good 90-minute to two-hour movie in there. Of course, a cursory glance at the runtime on the box will flag up the problem with this...
Click to expand...

Yes. Like Pearl Harbor, it's a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours.
Click to expand...

That film really was shit... and the love-story-element could have actually worked if the male leading characters had been lovers instead of the bullshit they pulled with that triangle-relationship.
 
HAL.9000 said:
Someone explain to me how you can release a movie in 3D that wasn't filmed in 3D originally? The only thing they can do is re-do the CGI in 3D. In which case, that makes the movie partially 3D. Misleading if you ask me.

Same applies to the StarWars Prequel 3D release.
Click to expand...

You could easily say that about the majority of movies being released in 3D today. Most of them are conversions.
 
It will be interesting to see if there's still a market for this movie 15 years later. I won't be going, but, then again, I didn't go to see it when it came out, either. I suppose a big re-release like this is like printing money, though, since all the studio has to do is pay off a (comparatively cheap) 3-D conversion and the nominal marketing costs (and, boy, is capitalizing on the cross-marketing of the 100th anniversary a smart business decision).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top