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

[Gaith]

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.

Normally I'd agree, but I don't think Big Jim is doing this just for a few extra bucks - or at least I'd like to think that he isn't. I do think that he believes in the project, and therefore hoped it'd be good, so it's a shame to hear that it may not be.

 

[scotpens]

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.

Just like movies made in black-and-white were shot for black-and-white. Which is why colorization sucks.

 

[Amaris]

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.

Just like movies made in black-and-white were shot for black-and-white. Which is why colorization sucks.

I've yet to see a well done colorization conversion.

 

[tomalak301]

If this movie is playing in 2D any place, I would love to see it on the big screen. Maybe on the internet I'm in a minority, but I really loved this movie and even watched the very end on HBO this evening. I do admit getting choked up at the ending.

 

[Amaris]

If this movie is playing in 2D any place, I would love to see it on the big screen. Maybe on the internet I'm in a minority, but I really loved this movie and even watched the very end on HBO this evening. I do admit getting choked up at the ending.

Oh, I love the movie, too. The technical achievements are tremendous, and who doesn't love to see the Titanic in all her glory? I felt like I was seeing the real thing, and just marveled at the detail poured into making her look so real and vivid. I don't actually own the movie (well, okay, on VHS), but prices are prohibitive right now. Probably due to the re-release of the movie in 3D (Thanks James). Still, wonderful movie, and if they released it in 2D in my local theater, I'd drop down the money for a ticket to see it all over again.

 

[Starkers]

If this movie is playing in 2D any place, I would love to see it on the big screen. Maybe on the internet I'm in a minority, but I really loved this movie and even watched the very end on HBO this evening. I do admit getting choked up at the ending.

Oh, I love the movie, too. The technical achievements are tremendous, and who doesn't love to see the Titanic in all her glory? I felt like I was seeing the real thing, and just marveled at the detail poured into making her look so real and vivid. I don't actually own the movie (well, okay, on VHS), but prices are prohibitive right now. Probably due to the re-release of the movie in 3D (Thanks James). Still, wonderful movie, and if they released it in 2D in my local theater, I'd drop down the money for a ticket to see it all over again.

I love it to, and the only reason I don't watch it more often is really the length. I remember being quite dismissive before I went to see it, and being quite shaken by how good it was. It's a bit over the top, and dear lord some of the scenes Cameron cut were really quite bad, but on the whole its a fantastic film, both technically and emotionally.

One of my favourite bits is where Cameron pulls back to show how utterly tiny this huge ship was, and yeah the ending gets me every time as well...even if I do feel sorry for rose's eventual husband!

 

[scotpens]

I've yet to see a well done colorization conversion.

That’s like good fake boobs. There is no such thing.

 

[JarodRussell]

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

He recommends not buying a ticket, get it?

LOL

 

[Robert Maxwell]

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.

Normally I'd agree, but I don't think Big Jim is doing this just for a few extra bucks - or at least I'd like to think that he isn't. I do think that he believes in the project, and therefore hoped it'd be good, so it's a shame to hear that it may not be.

He's the exception, I'd say. He seems to really care about the technology and its future and believes it can add a lot to the experience when done right.

I don't think that really goes for most other movies, where the conversions are done quickly and late in the game.

 

[Corran Horn]

Ebert is on a crusade against 3D. He's dug-in on the issue. It gets tiresome.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Ebert is on a crusade against 3D. He's dug-in on the issue. It gets tiresome.

That may be so, however you have to admit the man has a point. Cameron is one I'd trust in getting a good conversion done over anyone else, and I think everyone is interested in how he does. The fact that even Cameron couldn't make it look good speaks volumes about the whole process in general.

 

[JarodRussell]

Ebert is on a crusade against 3D. He's dug-in on the issue. It gets tiresome.

That may be so, however you have to admit the man has a point. Cameron is one I'd trust in getting a good conversion done over anyone else, and I think everyone is interested in how he does. The fact that even Cameron couldn't make it look good speaks volumes about the whole process in general.

Have you seen it or are you just relying on Ebert?

 

[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.

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.

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.

The Hobbit is being conceptualized and shot from the ground up in 3D, it is not a post-conversion.

PJ even had concept artists doing their work in red/blue shades of pencil so he could throw on some old fashioned 3D glasses to get a grasp of their work.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Ebert is on a crusade against 3D. He's dug-in on the issue. It gets tiresome.

That may be so, however you have to admit the man has a point. Cameron is one I'd trust in getting a good conversion done over anyone else, and I think everyone is interested in how he does. The fact that even Cameron couldn't make it look good speaks volumes about the whole process in general.

Have you seen it or are you just relying on Ebert?

Haven't seen it, no. But I haven't been very impressed by what I saw in the trailer which makes me feel like he has some valid points. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but more often than not, I trust his opinion. In this case, it isn't even about Ebert. He only confirms my suspicions that I already had. Anyone else could have confirmed it.

The Hobbit is being conceptualized and shot from the ground up in 3D, it is not a post-conversion.

PJ even had concept artists doing their work in red/blue shades of pencil so he could throw on some old fashioned 3D glasses to get a grasp of their work.

And yet, I didn't even mention The Hobbit. I was speaking about post-conversions in general. I think you may have meant to quote Jax. I was more or less agreeing with him over Avatar sequels and expanded on movies shot in 3D.

 

[Gaith]

Ebert is on a crusade against 3D. He's dug-in on the issue. It gets tiresome.

He's a partisan, aye, but he praises 3D when he thinks it's done well, as I noted in the OP. Can't ask for more than that, I say.

 

[FreezeC77]

Wasn't Cameron extremely critical of movies that were not 'true 3D' and just post-conversion movies with some 3D shots. I think I remember him criticizing Prince of Persia or Harry Potter or something.


Well I guess he thinks its ok if the 'not true 3D movie' is putting money in his own pocket.

 

[FordSVT]

The Hobbit is being conceptualized and shot from the ground up in 3D, it is not a post-conversion.

PJ even had concept artists doing their work in red/blue shades of pencil so he could throw on some old fashioned 3D glasses to get a grasp of their work.

And yet, I didn't even mention The Hobbit. I was speaking about post-conversions in general. I think you may have meant to quote Jax. I was more or less agreeing with him over Avatar sequels and expanded on movies shot in 3D.

He said he was going to see the Hobbit in 2D, and that he wouldn't be bothering with any movie in 3D besides Avatar. You said "Agreed", and then talked about how you'd only see movies that were done from the ground up in 3D. Surely you can see why I thought you might think the Hobbit was a 2D-3d conversion?

 

[Trek4Ever]

Is there an easy way of finding out if upcoming films are real 3D or the garbage post-conversion? Me and my friends were going to see Ghost Rider this weekend but found out from a review that it was post-conversion, so we're going to pass on that. There has to be website that reports on what 3D process the films use.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Is there an easy way of finding out if upcoming films are real 3D or the garbage post-conversion? Me and my friends were going to see Ghost Rider this weekend but found out from a review that it was post-conversion, so we're going to pass on that. There has to be website that reports on what 3D process the films use.

http://realorfake3d.com/

 

[Seven83]

Here is a website about past and upcoming 3D movies:

http://www.realorfake3d.com/