James Cameron's "Ghosts Of The Abyss" Return to Titanic (1 Viewer)

[derek]

Has anyone seen or heard opinions about the polarized digital 3D presentation at one of the Regal Cinemas (specifically in Norfolk, VA?) TIA.

 

[Steve Phillips]

I saw it in 35mm polarized 3-D at Regal Cinemas in Las Vegas, and it was awful. Details earlier in this thread.
Are there any theatres running a digital polarized version?

 

[Ricardo C]

I was reading the interview with Cameron, and something made me curious:

The film is shot in 3D digital, which is blown up to IMAX. But the ROV only has a standard camera inside it, as it's so miniaturised we couldn't get a high definition camera inside the vehicle.

What kind of resolution does this camera have? He calls it a standard camera, and not a hi-def one.

 

[derek]

Has anyone else seen a 'good' 35mm presentation of 'Ghosts of the Abyss?' TIA.

 

[Johnny G]

I was going to take my kids to see this but read the review at imdb.com and the guy says it's not polarized but I asked my cousin who took his kids, he didn't know what I meant so I asked if the lenses were blue & red or clear and he said clear.

Also the review says the reenactions are good and I just wondered how much of the film this takes up as it might be more entertaining for the kids.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It's not anaglyph (red & blue glasses).

Depending on your venue, it's either polarized or it uses the IMAX LCD electronic shutter glasses.

 

[Dave-Q-H]

I saw it at the Bradford Imax, and really enjoyed it

the 3D is amazing - it uses these clear/kind of tinted glasses that don't distort the image. it's worth going just to see such clear 3D!

however, the downside is that because most of the film was photographed at the submerged Titanic, the footage is very mirky and doesn't lend itself to 3D. everything above sea level looks great though

it's only an hour long and there are loads of gimmicky 3D-splitscreen effects throughout, so I don't think kids will be bored

recommended

 

[Johnny G]

Hi Dave, I'd be going to Bradford, living in Huddersfield.

Can either of you tell me how much of the film is Re-enactments similar to the blockbuster movie?

 

[Kelly W]

Very little of the film is re-enactments. Basically, they will show a bit of the real wreckage and superimpose a computer generated image of what it used to look like. I don't recall any lengthy dramatic re-enactments.

I really wasn't too impressed with the movie though. I guess if you're a Titanic nut, you'll enjoy it, but I didn't see anything too earth-shattering. It was a lot of "See that crusty brown hole? That's where a staircase used to be. See that other crusty brown hole? That's where the captain used to sit. Now *THAT* crusty brown hole-- that was a window."

The best part (for me) was towards the end when they have (not to give anything away) some sort of "technical difficulty". But I question how much of the drama/tension was exaggerated by creative editing.

Overall, it was well-done, but I just didn't find it too interesting.

Part of my problem was that the 3-D effect wasn't quite right for the first third of the movie. I think there was a small problem with the projector. It felt like we were looking at the film cross-eyed. After a while, it got better, but in the begining, it was really frustrating. I'm pretty sure we were using the polarized glasses. They were the same ones we were given for other 3-D movies like Space Station 3-D (which was very good and didn't have problems with the 3-D effects).

I wish you guys better luck!!!

-Kelly

 

[Jason Seaver]

I enjoyed it, but I agree that it dragged when Cameron & company started going on about stuff that was specific to the Titanic. For me, it was the process and the nifty tech that was interesting - I'm really not that interested in that particular ship at all.

 

[Dave-Q-H]

I definitely came out wishing they had shown the end of the feature length movie (the ship sinking) in 3D. I don't know if that would have been possible, though.