I'd rather watch a turd get flushed...
... in 3D.
James Cameron has confirmed that the 3D version of his 1997 epic Titanic will hit cinema screens on 6 April next year. In a statement, the director said: "There's a whole generation that's never seen Titanic as it was meant to be seen, on the big screen. And this will be Titanic as you've never seen it before, digitally …
... in 3D.
And certainly better than the turgid Blade Runner (director's cut or otherwise), which remains *inexplicably* popular amongst a certain subset of aging males.
purple hair and everything
Cheers! I'm gunning for 30 downvotes, after which I'll award myself a Friday beer.
(and at least I'm honest enough to use the right icon)
One more for the beer count, ;)
Nice. Have another!
It'll still be a steaming pile of crap no matter how many different techniques they apply to it. Only the mythbusters can polish a turd.
But that's not going to stop the evangelising Cameron rolling it in 3-D glitter.
I'll go along, see if they miss the iceberg this time!
... it's the only film I've ever been to see twice at the cinema. And in both cases I was leaning over to the side, along with everyone else in the cinema (galaxy quest style) willing it to miss the iceberg.
Funny how even tho I know what happens to Titanic, each time I watch it I still hold my breath and lean to the side at that point.
The only movie of Cameron's being remastered for 3D cinema I would want to see is Aliens... That would be awesome.
Titanic can go hit an iceberg.
But with this ad-hoc 3D sauce? Let's first see if it works.
I can imagine a process being reasonably successful on large structural shapes [such as ocean liners], I can't figure out how to do small dappled surfaces [like bony aliens].
...that Dances With Smurfs *was* Aliens in 3D
that is all
Can people stop whining about 3D movies inducing nausea and headaches... yes, maybe a very few people get that side-effect but the same can be said for any activity, there will be moaners complaining about the very same from roller coasters, driving fast, sex and just about any other enjoyable activity you could name.
It's a stereoscopic movie. Just let the rest of us sit back and (try to) enjoy the thing in the same way we do for any other movie. Yes, many of them are turds; that's for the viewer to decide. Get over yourselves.
I'd find your argument easier to take if you weren't applying it in defence of 3D Titanic.
Ouch, touched a nerve there... Presumably, you're not dumb enough to go to a 3D movie _again_ after the effects the first time around? Thus, the number of people who actually experience these effects at any given screening is surely a tiny minority of the people present. And if you don't like it, you can watch the 2D version.
And no, my argument clearly isn't in defence of Titanic 3D. It's a response to every mention of 3D films being accompanied by people moaning about the effects stereoscopic content can have on a minority of people. My response is "enough already".
"The point is, people who can enjoy a movie in 2D without any ill effects can not enjoy a 3D movie in some circumstances."
So go see your films in 2D and stop bitching about them also being available in 3D for those of us who do like that.
That said, if 3D's not done properly, right from the start of filming, it's shit. And I wouldn't go see Titanic whether in 2D or 3D cos it's also shit. However, can the whingers please shut the hell up about how other people watch their films. I've never seen a 3D film in any of my local cinemas that wasn't also available in 2D, so it's not like you're missing out.
Or even how's about you stop bitching at people with legitimate concerns about the way movies are being made/sold to us.
Have a closer look at the screens the 2d versions are being shown on. The 3d always get the biggest/newest screens with lots of time slots since that's the print they are promoting the most. All the 2d versions I have seen have been thrown into the dirty small screens along with stupid timeslots.
The extra charge for 3d over the non-3d is one reason I suspect many won't go and see them. Why exactly? Its the same projectors, the same screen..... oh and one pair of crappy plastic (passive) glasses!
U really think that producing a film in 3D doesnt cost any more that producing one in 2D, SERIOUSLY ????
"U really think that producing a film in 3D doesnt cost any more that producing one in 2D, SERIOUSLY ????"
Which other films have the ticket price linked to the production cost? Do low budget films for £1 to see in your cinema and the summer blockbuster £10?
Generally if you spend more making a film you hope to make the money back by selling more tickets, not by making the tickets more expensive. Why should 3D films be treated any differently?
... 3D projectors are different to 2D. Not that I'm a fan of 3D particularly.
Once you take into account the amount most 3D films seem to save on things like decent writing, yes.
Furthermore the screens themselves require upgrading in most cases, so as not to mess up all the careful polarisation upon reflection of the light. Still compatible with 2D, but all extra costs...
I just vomited in my mouth a little
3D Boobs! : Kate Winslet does get 'em out.
Post Processed 3D = Waste of time.
welcome Winslet's wabs in the 3rd dimenson.
Mark Kermode's 5-second review still stands out as the perfect description of this film:
"There's this ship. It sinks."
Never in my life 4h79min felt as long as sitting through that film.
As I recall, I was excused [my mate, a merchant marine, couldn't stand to see sinking ships; our missuses would go together] but then someone ruined that excuse [he went to make up for forgetting an anniversary]... Agony.
The goggles, they weren't invented yet but they would have done nothing!
Does it for me!!
Jude (1996) would be a *lot* more interesting
(assuming the 3D process really works!)
Another 3D film nobody wants. It was crap in the eighties and its still crap now.
Films are always crap several years before they're made (released in 97, in this case).
I'd normally blame the lack of music, but the absence of Celine ****ing Dion's brain-scouringly awful sonic vomit can only be a good thing.
Most interesting (certainly not the film) is that he's converting it to 4k, ready for when bluray dies and 1080p looks like NTSC in comparison. Is the death of the current formats already planned? What will/can replace bluray with capacity for 4k images?
Everyone with an ounce of sense (so, that's everyone other than George Lucas, who doesn't want his Star Wars trilogy to look embarrassingly better than the prequels he shot digitally at 1920x1080) is scanning and mastering at 4k these days where possible. The difference is visible on big cinema screens, and a nice bit of anti-aliased scaling down to Blu-ray resolution looks nicer than from a 2k source too.
The biggest quality problem being faced is that even if you're not Lucas testing out shoddy new camera tech, a lot of late 90s to mid 00s films went through a 2k digital intermediate, and so the source data just isn't there. That's why the current Blu-ray of The Fellowship Of The Ring looks all waxy; a straight comparison between the Bridge of Khazad Dum shots in it and the beginning of Two Towers shows a huge difference as the tech had come along in that time.
As for Titanic, it's quite fun in a spectacularly dumb way once the ship starts sinking, so I might grab a 2D Blu-ray (somehow I've manage to lose VHS, DVD and even Laserdisc copies to other people over the years). But I hate 3D films, so I'll skip the cinema run.
...always shoot with the best quality/resolution you can afford.
When the digital format was being specified, the SMPTE did tests of cinema resolution and determined a projected 35mm image in an average theatre was equivalent to 800 TV lines of resolution in 4:3 aspect ratio., approximately 1600 pixels. A few hundred pixels were added for wide screen, and 1920X1080 was concieved.
The big loss of resolution in projected film was the optical losses during the editing process. The motion picture industry moved to laser scanning the original negative, then doing post production digitally, and scanning the finished movie to either a printer negative or to an "interpositive" from which the printer negatives were struck.
Some of the early scans were at 1920 or 2K, but 3K and then 4K followed. The jump in quality was immediately visible on the screen and even in DVD's which were suddenly so much sharper that makeup which had been crafted to overcome the poor resolution of film became visible enough to annoy.
Lucas used the Sony Cine Alta camera for episodes II and III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CineAlta) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars) I ran a quick comparison of episode i and episode II and noticed the live action charactors in episode I were not as sharp as the CGI people . In episode II there is a better match between live and CG charactors. (YMMV)
In the case of Titanic, and most "film" films, the negatives have been carefully preserved, so rescanning at an improved resolution and rendering from the original Edit Decision List provides an upgrade path. Certainly not cheap, but doable.
As digital cameras reach 4K and beyond, much production is now being shot digitally, and Sony 's F65 8K Digital (which has 4K green sensors) indicate that the trend will continue.
also has the side effect of being at the limit of bandwidth for broadcast TV infrastructure (all that co-ax and related equipment they use in prod&post). As the TV producers upgrade their infrastructure to better quality kit, and possibly fibre, that will enable larger-scale adoption of denser image formats.
There's one scene that could be improved with 3D, anyway.
Kate Winslett nude in 3D...
still not worth it
As if millions of habs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...
If only for the scene near the end where Leonardo diCaprio sinks further and further away from the viewer into depths of the North Atlantic.
(Have I given anything away?)
3D is shit.
"3D is shit."
Just because people have made shit films in 3D doesn't make 3D shit. "Closer to the Edge" was fantastic in 3D. It can be done. It just takes the right subject and a decent director/cinematographer.
Of course, I'd rather drift across the North Atlantic clinging to piece of wreckage than sit through Titanic again.
So... what you're saying is that 3d is a gimmick for silly stuff/sports/boobs/etc?
Because it certainly adds nothing to the story/plot/acting/or in fact *anything* that usually makes a movie good.
Maybe they can shift that awful Celine Dion song as it should be possible for viewers of a 3D version to judge whether people are near, far...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017