-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

TITANIC: Jim Cameron's film in 3-D coming...eventually.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
23 replies to this topic

#1 of 24 Nicholas Martin

Nicholas Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,683 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2003

Posted March 21 2009 - 06:49 AM

From the TIME article linked in the AVATAR thread:

3-D: The Future of Movies - TIME

Quote:
The lights dim in the screening room. Suddenly, the doomed Titanic fills the screen--but not the way I remember in the movie. The luxury liner is nearly vertical, starting its slide into the black Atlantic, and Leonardo DiCaprio is hanging on for life, just like always. But this time, I am too. The camera pans to the icy water far below, pulling me into the scene--the sensation reminds me of jerking awake from a dream--and I grip the sides of my seat to keep from falling into the drink.

Most of us have seen the top-grossing film of all time. But not like this. The new version, still in production, was remade in digital 3-D, a technology that's finally bringing a true third dimension to movies. Without giving you a headache.


So...does the prospect of a 3-D version of TITANIC renew interest in this film to you?

#2 of 24 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,772 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted March 21 2009 - 06:56 AM

I wonder if this will translate to 3-D 'better' than movies actually made for 3-D. The movies that I've seen shot in 3-D understandably want to show off their 3-D effects a little and while that's fun, it also sticks out like a sore thumb. In other words, I wonder if something like Titanic converted to 3-D will work better than movies shot in 3-D because it was initially shot without any 3-D flourishes.

#3 of 24 Nicholas Martin

Nicholas Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,683 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2003

Posted March 21 2009 - 07:00 AM

The only made-in-3-D movie I've seen, on television no-less, was one of those gawdawful "Friday The 13th" movies.

Every time some one picked up an object, I half-expected them to wink at the camera. It was so ridiculous on TV, I can't imagine what it would have looked like with the glasses on. Posted Image

#4 of 24 Chuck Mayer

Chuck Mayer

    Lead Actor

  • 7,976 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Chuck Mayer
  • LocationNorthern Virginia

Posted March 21 2009 - 09:49 AM

I'd love to see Titanic again on the big screen. In 3D would be a nice bonus. Very nice.
Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#5 of 24 Larry Sutliff

Larry Sutliff

    Screenwriter

  • 2,853 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 17 2000

Posted March 21 2009 - 10:04 AM

I would love to see TITANIC in 3-D. Or any excellent theatrical presentation of the film.

#6 of 24 Henry Gale

Henry Gale

    Producer

  • 4,633 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 10 1999

Posted March 22 2009 - 01:12 AM

Saw Coraline in 3D twice and loved it, but I did get a little eye strain while doing so.
194 minutes of Titanic 3D would be too much for me, but I would like to catch Rose's modeling session.
"I was born to ramble, born to rove
Some men are searchin for the Holy Grail
But there ain't nothin sweeter 
Than riden' the rails."
-Tom Waits-

#7 of 24 Chad R

Chad R

    Screenwriter

  • 2,174 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 1999
  • Real Name:Chad Rouch

Posted March 22 2009 - 01:30 AM

I'd be happy with a 2D IMAX version. But 3D would get me into a theater again.

#8 of 24 Mr. Film

Mr. Film

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 152 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2009

Posted March 22 2009 - 04:03 AM

I couldn't watch a 3D movie for 3 hours. It would kill my eyes.
"As soon as television became the only secondary way in which films were watched, films had to adhere to a pretty linear system, whereby you can drift off for ten minutes and go and answer the phone and not really lose your place."
-Christopher Nolan

#9 of 24 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,772 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted March 22 2009 - 05:04 AM

^ For what it's worth, the new Real-D 3-D process is much easier on the eyes than the old red and blue glasses that you may be thinking of. I saw the My Bloody Valentine remake (using the Real-D) and I didn't have any problem. Around the same time, I watched the new Friday The 13th Part III in 3-D DVD (using the red and blue glasses) and after about twenty minutes, I thought my head was about to explode. That being said, even with the Real-D, 3 hours might be a whole different story.

#10 of 24 Nicholas Martin

Nicholas Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,683 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2003

Posted March 22 2009 - 05:52 AM

They preserved the 3-D effect on the DVD of that movie?

Interesting. Wouldn't convince me to sit through it again but it's interesting.

#11 of 24 Mr. Film

Mr. Film

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 152 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2009

Posted March 22 2009 - 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
^ For what it's worth, the new Real-D 3-D process is much easier on the eyes than the old red and blue glasses that you may be thinking of. I saw the My Bloody Valentine remake (using the Real-D) and I didn't have any problem. Around the same time, I watched the new Friday The 13th Part III in 3-D DVD (using the red and blue glasses) and after about twenty minutes, I thought my head was about to explode. That being said, even with the Real-D, 3 hours might be a whole different story.

Actually the real 3D ones are what I was thinking of. I recentley saw Coraline (great movie) in real 3D and even then it still bothered my eyes. I don't think that 3D has that big of an effect in cinema anyway. It really doesn't help make a good story at all. People will go see a movie in 3D just because it's in 3D, not because they think it's a good movie.
"As soon as television became the only secondary way in which films were watched, films had to adhere to a pretty linear system, whereby you can drift off for ten minutes and go and answer the phone and not really lose your place."
-Christopher Nolan

#12 of 24 Henry Gale

Henry Gale

    Producer

  • 4,633 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 10 1999

Posted March 22 2009 - 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Film
I recentley saw Coraline (great movie) in real 3D and even then it still bothered my eyes.

+1...and as I mentioned in post #6.
"I was born to ramble, born to rove
Some men are searchin for the Holy Grail
But there ain't nothin sweeter 
Than riden' the rails."
-Tom Waits-

#13 of 24 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,772 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted March 22 2009 - 11:16 AM

I'm surprised that I had a stronger tolerance for the Real-D than others. Like I said in my other posts, the red and blue glasses hurt my head pretty quickly so I figured that I'd be pretty susceptible to headaches with the Real-D as well but that wasn't the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin
They preserved the 3-D effect on the DVD of that movie?
Yeah, on the latest re-release (which was released to coincide with the remake), they finally released a 3-D version of it. If you're not a F13 fan, don't bother checking it out. Posted Image

#14 of 24 Nicholas Martin

Nicholas Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,683 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2003

Posted March 22 2009 - 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
Yeah, on the latest re-release (which was released to coincide with the remake), they finally released a 3-D version of it. If you're not a F13 fan, don't bother checking it out. Posted Image


Back in 2001 or so, when I still had 'premium' channels, I saw a marathon of parts 1 through...hell I don't even know how many there are, but I think the last one had a yacht or something.

Those movies are good for a laugh, but no I can't say I'm a fan. Posted Image

I remember one of the movies had a scene outside, and this girl was on the grass with these huge fully exposed....well. That one wasn't ALL bad. Posted Image


Do these 3-D presentations look anything like those old Viewmaster toys? Those were pretty cool. That's what comes to mind when describing these things without the red/blue glasses.

#15 of 24 SD_Brian

SD_Brian

    Supporting Actor

  • 586 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 14 2007

Posted March 22 2009 - 12:12 PM

I wonder if they would actually render all of Titanic in 3-D or just select scenes like they did with the IMAX versions of Superman Returns and the last Harry Potter movie? If they do this, I hope they'll render the entire movie in 3-D. 3-D is a distracting gimmick as it is but, when you actually have to put the glasses on your face in the middle of a dramatic scene, it really pulls you out of the story; the exact opposite of what the 3-D is supposed to do.

Also, FWIW, the new Real-D glasses don't bother me. The red/blue glasses leave me seeing red out of one eye and blue out of the other for about 1/2 hour after the movie is over.

#16 of 24 Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer

  • 14,836 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted March 22 2009 - 12:27 PM

Quote:
So...does the prospect of a 3-D version of TITANIC renew interest in this film to you?

No, but I despise the movie. That said, even the original Star Wars trilogy in 3D probably won't get me into the theaters. I'm interested to see where 3D is now, but I rarely go to the movies.

#17 of 24 Mr. Film

Mr. Film

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 152 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2009

Posted March 22 2009 - 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_S_H
No, but I despise the movie.

What!!!!! Titanic was a great film.
"As soon as television became the only secondary way in which films were watched, films had to adhere to a pretty linear system, whereby you can drift off for ten minutes and go and answer the phone and not really lose your place."
-Christopher Nolan

#18 of 24 Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer

  • 14,836 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted March 22 2009 - 12:46 PM

I'm just answering the question. Let's not go there.

#19 of 24 Mr. Film

Mr. Film

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 152 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2009

Posted March 22 2009 - 01:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_S_H
I'm just answering the question. Let's not go there.

Fine! I don't really care anyway.Posted Image
"As soon as television became the only secondary way in which films were watched, films had to adhere to a pretty linear system, whereby you can drift off for ten minutes and go and answer the phone and not really lose your place."
-Christopher Nolan

#20 of 24 DaveB

DaveB

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 194 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted March 22 2009 - 01:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin
So...does the prospect of a 3-D version of TITANIC renew interest in this film to you?

Nope, still no interest. Posted Image


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow