What's new

Titanic Back On The Big Screen In Dolby Vision 3D (1 Viewer)

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,274
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
If your talking about Titanic, we found the 3D incredibly effective on both disc and in the theatre. I used the disc to demonstrate my system often.

The "Titanic" 3D conversion is phenomenal. The "Terminator 2" 3D conversion, at least at the AMC I saw it at, was abysmal.
 

KPmusmag

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
1,627
Location
Henderson, NV
Real Name
Kevin Parcher
Honestly, I know 3D is uncomfortable but I think you would have been fine - I did go to see it in 3D, and there was not one apparent 3D effect in the entire film. I saw no depth, no layering, no pop-out. There were two images onscreen, and the polarized filter was on the projector, but the 3D was just not apparent at any point. I (politely) complained to the theater after the fact, and they spoke to their projectionist, who swore that there was nothing wrong with the settings or setup, and that was just the DCP they were sent, which was labeled as being in 3D. I read other people on HTF saying that the 3D was very lackluster at their screenings, so I wonder if it was a technical issue at my showing or if it's just not a very 3D-like conversion -- which would surprise me for Cameron! I'm hopeful that the UK 3D disc which keeps getting postponed will eventually come out so I can try it at home and see if it's better there.

That is interesting - there were no "pop outs" per se - but amazing depth in my experience, and same here at home projecting the 3D blu. There must have been a malfunction of some kind.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,274
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
That is interesting - there were no "pop outs" per se - but amazing depth in my experience, and same here at home projecting the 3D blu. There must have been a malfunction of some kind.

Where is the T2 3D disc out? The UK disc I have keeps getting its released date pushed - I'm almost afraid it'll just eventually be canceled. I'm certainly hoping for a better experience at home.

I agree that a theater malfunction does seem most likely, but the theater claims to have researched the issue, checked their logs, and determined that there was no fault with anything on their end. I had a very nice email exchange with the manager, who went back to the projectionist with follow-up questions, etc. I mean, it's totally possible that they're mistaken or that they're just trying to save face, but I think at the least they believe what they're telling me is true. And I've read reports from other HTF members attending screenings that their presentation also seemed maybe vaguely 3D at parts but nothing at all like Titanic or what they were expecting. Maybe they sent out some defective DCPs to a bunch of theaters, that are technically in 3D but not properly activating? I don't know, it was weird. I've never had an experience quite like it before. I could tell from turning my head and looking into the projection booth that the polarizer was in place, and that two images were coming onto the screen. I could tell from looking at the screen without glasses that the two images were landing there. And the glasses eliminated the doubling from the two images, so that was working as well. But when I looked through the glasses, other than very briefly in the opening scenes, I really didn't see any depth or dimensionality or separation of objects. At best, it looked worse than the automated JVC conversions of "I Robot", "Predator" and "Jumper" that Fox released to BD3D.
 

Jake Lipson

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
24,506
Real Name
Jake Lipson
Just curious, Jake, is there some biological reason you can’t handle 3D, or do you just not like it?

Yes. Due to my disability, I do not have great depth perception in real life, so I think that is part of it. This isn't a problem for me in terms of living my day-to-day life, but it is what it is.

As far as 3D movies are concerned, I went to a handful of 3D films when the format was newer because I was slow to realize this. The result was basically nothing. I never saw anything that would be any different than 2D, except that it was darker due to the shading of the glasses, and gave me a massive headache.

Avatar was the last one I saw this way before I finally figured out that I wasn't receiving it. So, if it's not going to work in terms of me being able to perceive the intended effect, and it gives me a headache too, I simply no longer see the value in having an experience like that, especially at higher prices. Plus, the 3D glasses were an awkward fit over the glasses I normally wear at the movies (I'm nearsighted), so I'd always have to choose one or the other, and there's just no reason for me to do 3D anymore.

For those people who are able to appreciate it and like it, that's awesome. I'm just not part of that group, so I won't subject myself to a 3D film experience I know I'm not going to benefit from if there is no 2D option.
 

Alberto_D

BANNED
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
215
Honestly, they start to talk about HDR, and now about Dolby, saying the real world have a lot of dynamic, comparing to the power of sun light etc... But no TV have such power, otherwise could even cause first degree burns of damge to eye. Most times HDR, for example, it's more to compensate the crap characteristi of LCD (and LED backlight LCD) screen since such screen crush blacks and clipp whits. Mpstr HDR look like a JPG with extended dynamic range treatment on Photoshop.
 

Alberto_D

BANNED
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
215
The head of Legend 3D, Barry Sandrew, who created the first true digital film colorization system, and created a semi automatic image segmentation tool, later used for 3D conversion too, and also head of Legend 3D (3D conversion company) also have momo vision, despite have sight in both eyes.
Probably your brain is considering much more one eye than another.

ut the modern 3D conversion, in my opinion, use to add not much depth, since to add a lot of 3D depth would require recreate sister images with more difference between each other, and in many situation this would be quite difficult.

Yes. Due to my disability, I do not have great depth perception in real life, so I think that is part of it. This isn't a problem for me in terms of living my day-to-day life, but it is what it is.

As far as 3D movies are concerned, I went to a handful of 3D films when the format was newer because I was slow to realize this. The result was basically nothing. I never saw anything that would be any different than 2D, except that it was darker due to the shading of the glasses, and gave me a massive headache.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,274
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment. Converted films like "Titanic" exhibit fantastic depth, layering and separation of objects. And the 3D in "The Walk" (which was a converted film) is the most astonishing thing I have ever seen.
 

Alberto_D

BANNED
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
215
Well... remamber that a nice 3D view most time depends of many objects in foreground, middle and background. When a scene don't have such presence of elements as described, a single object can look not quite good. In such cases a more pronounced 3D would be better.
Titanic sets and photography was very favorable to 3D conversion, and if I remamber well was the most expansive 3D conversions ever made.
 

Jake Lipson

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
24,506
Real Name
Jake Lipson
Box Office Mojo says the final theater count for tomorrow's re-release of Titanic is 87.

Obviously, since they're offering this in 3D/IMAX/Dolby Cinema, the price will be hiked over normal 2D ticket prices. However, with such a low screen count, it seems too nominal to make a huge impact box-office-wise.

I think Paramount would make more money taking this wide, especially since there aren't any major new releases in the next two weeks running up to Last Jedi, but what do I know? As I said before, my AMC is undergoing a remodel right now and doesn't have all of their screens open, so they won't be participating, which given its chain-specific nature means that it won't open anywhere near me.

I'd gladly go if I could for a local 2D and/or IMAX presentation. But apparently Paramount doesn't want my money.

I wonder if AMC paid Paramount anything to have this be exclusive to their chain rather than a wider release.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,274
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Obviously, since they're offering this in 3D/IMAX/Dolby Cinema, the price will be hiked over normal 2D ticket prices. However, with such a low screen count, it seems too nominal to make a huge impact box-office-wise.

To be clear, this is a Dolby Cinema promotion, not IMAX -- IMAX is instead showing a repeat of Dunkirk.

Not all Dolby Cinema locations will be showing the film in 3D; many will be showing it in 2D.

I think Paramount would make more money taking this wide, especially since there aren't any major new releases in the next two weeks running up to Last Jedi, but what do I know?
I wonder if AMC paid Paramount anything to have this be exclusive to their chain rather than a wider release.

I'm sure there's some kind of deal going on. Theatrical repertory is all but dead; they're not really expecting to make any money. Paramount isn't really a functional studio anymore; their only interest is in partnering with third party financiers and third party production companies to leverage existing intellectual property and their distribution network. (For instance, although Paramount releases a Mission: Impossible movie every few years and has new Star Trek films, they're not very involved in either. Paramount looks to outside companies like Skydance, as well as Chinese investors, to finance the films, and then hires production companies like Bad Robot to actually make the films. There is no one working at Paramount today in any major capacity who was around when Titanic first opened; the people there today have little to no connection to the company's history and heritage.)

It's my guess that Paramount wouldn't have the slightest bit of interest in promoting any of their old catalog stuff, particularly for how little repertory is expected to gross these days. I think it's more likely that Dolby didn't have any movies booked for their screens this week, that they have a relationship with James Cameron, and a deal was worked out to get these back in theaters for a short time since the rooms were open.

Frankly, I wonder what Cameron's expectation is. He did a video promo for these screenings, and he also did interviews around T2 3D. He's a smart guy. Does he know that repertory is dead and that T2 in 3D was a major, major flop (as it would have been in 2D) and that this will be about the same? Does he hope for better? Or does he not care on way or the other?
 

Jake Lipson

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
24,506
Real Name
Jake Lipson
I heard somewhere that IMAX was involved but I guess not. Starting tomorrow, my IMAX is showing not Dunkirk, but Coco for the first three shows of the day and Justice League in the evening, but as I said, we're not getting Titanic at all.

Cameron's video promo can't have taken more than an hour for him to shoot. I doubt he expects it to move the needle in terms of getting people to attend.

I know that re-releases are dead in general, but I still think they'd get more money off of a wide-ish opening (even if it was a few hundred theaters) than only 87, especially since there is a distinct lack of new product this week and next week.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Looking at my nearest theater (which is still a hike from me), they've got reserved seating and a good number of tickets are already sold for most of the shows over the weekend. Though I guess that may just be fans of the movie & tech fans who want to see it in Dolby Vision who are more likely to get their tickets early and there won't be much business beyond the folks who already have their tickets.
 

Wayne_j

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
4,898
Real Name
Wayne
Dolby Cinema is exclusive to AMC in the US which is why it is only showing in AMC theaters.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,274
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Looking at my nearest theater (which is still a hike from me), they've got reserved seating and a good number of tickets are already sold for most of the shows over the weekend. Though I guess that may just be fans of the movie & tech fans who want to see it in Dolby Vision who are more likely to get their tickets early and there won't be much business beyond the folks who already have their tickets.

I'm really glad to hear that someone is going. Dolby Cinema has quality screens, as does IMAX. When Dolby had Close Encounters earlier in the year, I checked the reserved seating charts a few times and it looked like it was playing to completely empty houses some nights, and just a handful of people at its busiest. I was interested in seeing Close Encounters, but the theater was charging the normal full price for Dolby Cinema, which is about $25 there. I just couldn't justify spending $25 to watch a movie I have at home. But if it had been $12, I would have done it. On the other hand, I did the Fathom Event for Star Trek II around the same time, and had a similar lesson there - that was only $12, but it was playing at that theater's smallest screen and was a technically inferior presentation to the Blu-ray. So $25 for Dolby Cinema is too much for me to see something I already have on a premium screen, and $12 is too much for a small screen. Had Close Encounters been under $20, I might have done it. They just raised the Dolby Cinema price again, so a pair of tickets to Titanic is over $50. That just seems outrageous to me for a twenty year old movie.

I would absolutely love it if IMAX and Dolby Cinema did limited-run revivals of popular films best seen on the big screen, done during times of the year when those houses would otherwise be empty, but priced at a discount to reflect that these films aren't new and that there are plenty of other ways for a viewer to watch them in nearly as high quality for free at home.

I know that re-releases are dead in general, but I still think they'd get more money off of a wide-ish opening (even if it was a few hundred theaters) than only 87, especially since there is a distinct lack of new product this week and next week.

Two things, which may or may not be related, for why I think it wasn't gonna make a box office splash:

-The way we go to the movies now is different than it used to be. This is a more anecdotal observation, but when entertainment choices were limited to what was playing on TV that night, what was playing in the theater that night, and maybe what your video store had. When I was a kid, my mom took me and my younger brothers to the movies every Friday night after school just because it was an inexpensive, fun thing to do that would distract us for a couple hours and let her have a quieter start to the weekend. I don't hear about parents doing that in the same way with their kids today. I don't think people plan on going to the movies anymore for the sake of going to the movies, and then decide what to see after they've decided to go out. I think nowadays, people go out for specific reasons, and not by happenstance. So on one hand, yes, Dolby Cinema's auditoriums would otherwise have been empty this weekend, but I don't think putting something in them drives the audience. I don't think people make decisions anymore based on "I'll go see whatever's at Dolby Cinema". I think they wait for the thing they want to see, and only then do they go out and see it.

-Everyone knows Star Wars is coming out in two weeks. I think The Last Jedi will behave, in terms of business, very similarly to The Force Awakens. The box office was dead the weekend before The Force Awakens came out, and there were good options for things to see in the theater then if people wanted to. But just as the success of Star Wars steamrolls over very movie released after Star Wars, I think it starts sucking the air out of the room ahead of time too. For whatever reason, possible some as noted above, some people are using the fact that they're seeing Star Wars in a couple weeks as a reason not to see a movie now. "Oh, I'm not going to go to the movies this weekend, we're already going next weekend!"

And.... price, price, price. I realize I live in possibly the most expensive market for moviegoing, and that the $26 a ticket that my Dolby Cinema charges is different from what other locations charge. But, if the idea is that Dolby Cinema is one of the most expensive tickets in the complex regardless of whether you live in New York or the midwest, that means that people are being asked to pay more than the cost of a regular movie ticket to see something they may already own at home, or could probably watch for free on a streaming service. And no one's really sold me on seeing the movie in this format. I didn't see trailers for it or posters for it the last time I was at that theater, even though it had already been announced. Knowing it exists isn't enough; they have to make me excited for it, and they're not even trying.
 

Jake Lipson

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
24,506
Real Name
Jake Lipson
I think it wasn't gonna make a box office splash

Let me rephrase: had they gone out to a moderate release of a few hundred screens in general auditoriums, with normal ticket prices, that might have done a reasonable number considering that the entire box office is likely to be in a low-to-moderate state this weekend. You are certainly correct that a lot of people are going to be holding their dollars for Star Wars (I do think the attitude of "We're not going this week because of going in 2 weeks" is related primarily to the cost factor), but Titanic has enough clout as a legacy title that I think certain people would have gone to the theater to see it because it is there, not because they are going to the theater to see something/anything. Due to its running time, Titanic would probably not currently be someone's first choice if they were planning to go see something for the sake of going to the movies, because it requires a much longer commitment from the viewer than, say, Coco or Justice League or really any other current release.

Titanic would certainly not currently have set the box office on fire under any circumstances, but I think enough people look back on the film fondly for at least some of them to want to see it again theatrically. And, of course, it's a legacy film that a lot of people haven't seen on the big screen at all. So I do think some people would take that opportunity. I know I would. Matinee prices here are $4.23 at the AMC (yes, really) and $7.60 at the Cinemark, provided it's not a premium screen, and the premium surcharge are only $3 or so. I would certainly be willing to pay either amount to see Titanic, which I have only ever seen at home on a TV.

I was nine years old in 1997 and my parents said I was too young for it then, so we rented it when the VHS came out, when they could fast-forward through scenes they didn't think I should watch yet. I remember Mom consented to sneak us in the back of the theater for about five minutes to watch the boat sink while we were early for a screening of Anastasia across the hall and waiting for the previous one to let out. But that's it. So, to me, Titanic has always been on my list of, "I'd love to do that in a theater but haven't had the chance." I suspect some other young people probably feel the same way.

Certainly in higher-priced markets like where you live, the incentive to go see it at prices such as you are describing is minimized significantly.

It's also worth noting that even though I go to a lot of movies, it doesn't work out to be ridiculously expensive, because a) 95% of the time I go to matinees, which are relatively cheap here; b) I never buy snacks or drinks or anything at all other than the movie ticket; and c) I almost always go alone. So, for me it's not that expensive of a proposition to go to the movies regularly, or to accept the cost of paying for a re-release of a beloved film. I realize this makes me a bit of an outlier. For other people in higher-priced markets, who go in groups and/or buy popcorn and drinks and whatnot, then I totally understand how those costs would make frequent moviegoing cost-prohibitive.
 
Last edited:

Jake Lipson

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
24,506
Real Name
Jake Lipson
For the record, I wrote the previous post and this one as a single post, but for some reason or other, the forum wouldn't display it all unless I split it up. Strange glitch.

Anyway...

On the other hand, I did the Fathom Event for Star Trek II around the same time, and had a similar lesson there - that was only $12, but it was playing at that theater's smallest screen and was a technically inferior presentation to the Blu-ray.

As we discussed in another thread, Fathom Events re-release screenings (which go more often to the Cinemark here) seem to be $12.50 everywhere, which works out for you since that's a discount in your market, but we get the short end of the stick, since with tax added on it becomes $13.58, an increase of $5.98 over the cost of a matinee ticket there.

Last weekend when I saw Howl's Moving Castle, there was a really small crowd -- probably less than 20 people -- and I thought that it might have been higher with more normal pricing. At $13.58 for one ticket (when the going rate for a normal movie here is so much cheaper, and the Blu-ray is on sale at Amazon for only slightly more than that), it was clearly only designed to attract die-hard fans of the movie who wanted very badly to see it on the big screen again. If it had been priced at $7.60 like other films, it might have been able to attract some newbies who were curious about the movie and heard it was good but had never seen it before. At those prices, though, curious newbies might as well just buy the Blu-ray.

I paid for Howl because it's the right thing to do, and because I wanted to demonstrate support for the Studio Gibli catalog being re-released in this manner, but it wouldn't be that difficult to buy a ticket for another, normal-priced movie and then simply go into the theater showing the Fathom Event movie, and I wondered if anyone did that. I couldn't really blame them if they did.

Fathom things never get the premium screens here, but since I don't have a home theater setup to speak of, any theatrical screening is going to be better than watching on my 40-inch TV with stereo sound out of the TV. So I did it without minding, although for you, I fully understand why the re-release of Kahn was a letdown.

For point of contrast, my arthouse had "cult classic" screenings of Spirited Away last week too, and there they price old movies at $6. When I went to that three days ahead of Howl, there were obviously pre-existing fans there, but I could tell that at least the couple sitting next to me had never seen it before from the way they were discussing it afterwards, and because the man whisper-explained to the woman what had happened in a scene she missed while going to the bathroom.) For $6 each, it's not surprising that they were interested in the theatrical experience for Spirited Away, but they might not have been at $13.58.)

I do, unfortunately, agree that Paramount does not seem interested in supporting this release as they should.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,815
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top