Titanic to Be Re-Released in 3D for 100th Anniversary

[rue]

Me too but there's always A Night To Remember to satisfy the obsession.

True, but I have to admit that I liked seeing it all in color. I think they did an excellent job bringing the Titanic back to life and whether or not you like the romantic part of it, which of course is fiction, the rest of the movie was well done I think.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I appreciate a good love story just as much as the next person -- for that Somewhere In Time is highly recommended. Cameron borrowed (plagiarized) heavily from Somewhere In Time for the basis of the love story in Titanic.

 

[rue]

I appreciate a good love story just as much as the next person -- for that Somewhere In Time is highly recommended. Cameron borrowed (plagiarized) heavily from Somewhere In Time for the basis of the love story in Titanic.

I love that movie too

 

[Edward]

So taking a crap movie, cranking it up to 4K, making it 3 -D is going to make it better?

As Grand Pappy Dollar always said: "Ya can't polish a turd."

No, but you can roll it in glitter.

Cameron's Titanic had great costuming, great set..... awful performances and an abysmyl script. Seriously, if I was responsible in any way for that steaming pile, I would do the decent thing and kill myself.

I don't like it.

Me too but there's always A Night To Remember to satisfy the obsession.

Infinitely superior film.

I never saw the movie, so it may be an ideal opportunity to catch up with it, all be it, decades later

Save yourself three hours of your life: don't bother, and instead do something you won't bitterly regret.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As far as Titanic movies go, "A Night To Remember" was better. Even the Titanic scene in "Cavalcade" was better.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

As far as Titanic movies go, "A Night To Remember" was better.

Agreed ... but ship disaster movies are always an iffy bet. (Remember "The Poseidon Adventure"? Please don't.) It's sink-or-swim.

 

[rue]

Oh come now...... You know you want to see it again

[video=youtube_share;CP0wV7IvSiI]http://youtu.be/CP0wV7IvSiI[/video]

 

[LizzieMaine]

.
Is a revival of "Smell-O-Vision" far behind? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision

Half the pictures playing at your local multiplex on any given weekend were made in Smell-O-Vision.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Half the pictures playing at your local multiplex on any given weekend were made in Smell-O-Vision.

Because they're stinkers?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.
We'll see if they ever re-release "My Dinner with Andre" in 3-D.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Dinner_with_Andre

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

How about movies you DO want to see in 3D? lol

 

[rue]

See this---> 0
That's how many

 

[Atomic Age]

How about movies you DO want to see in 3D? lol

Of they released some classics like the Universal 3D films It Came From Outer Space or The Creature From The Black Lagoon, or Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder on blu-ray 3D, that might get me interested in investing in a 3D TV.

Doug

 

[Edward]

Agreed ... but ship disaster movies are always an iffy bet. (Remember "The Poseidon Adventure"? Please don't.) It's sink-or-swim.

Better than a kick in the teeth. Titanic wasn't.

How about movies you DO want to see in 3D? lol

The 3D element of the few films I've seen in recent years was fine as far as it went. In none of them was it all about the effect over the story (none of them were George Lucas pictures, of course). The 3D was simply used as an extra layer, in much the same way as panoramic cameras, aerial shots, colour.... That said, if I'd gone to see any of those films in 2D I wouldn't have missed anything either, plus I'd have saved a few quid, and not had to have worn those glasses which are a serious inconvenience for those of us who already do wear glasses. I'm not digging out contacts every time I want to go to the cinema. 3D TV I have no interest in at all for now. I've seen it demoed. The effect is indeed impressive on a technical level, but on a screen the size of something you'd have at home, whatever it adds is of significantly lesser value, plus it's still dependant on those damn glasses. I can put up with them for a two hour stretch in the cinema, but no way would be bothered with them at home. Seems to me that the 3D TV thing is based on the popularity of "home cinema", the notion being that people will want to watch the films they saw in 3D in the cinema just the same way at home. If 3D dies out in cinemas once the novelty wears off, then it won't take off with TVs, I should think. The big thing that will kill it, imo, is the cost. Seems to me sooner or later people will simply get sick of paying the upcharge for seeing stuff in 3D.

 

[Stray Cat]

I haven't seen a single film in 3D.. and I'm still alive.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The only thing I've seen in 3D was Michael Jackson's Captain Eo at Disneyland.

 

[rue]

The only thing I've seen in 3D was Michael Jackson's Captain Eo at Disneyland.

That movie always gave me a headache

 

[LizzieMaine]

I can't see 3-D movies -- my eyes have "inadequate binocularity," and all I see when looking at 3-D processes is blurred, doubled images. So 3-D is something I have zero interest in -- we aren't equipped to show 3-D, and unless they start making indie art films in the process, there's no reason for us to be. And the idea of reprocessing older films for 3-D is the modern equivalent of "goat glanding" silent pictures for sound. And if you've ever seen a goat-glander, you'll know how well that worked out...

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

[video=youtube;6m2gl51J6lo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m2gl51J6lo[/video]

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.
I'd like to see "Fantasia" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 3-D. Guess I'll just have to drop some acid.