http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=488298&affid=100055

Well the release date is good since the world is supposed to end that year anyway. They say they are releasing it that year to make it 100 years since the Titanic sunk.

Some of the stuff could look interesting in 3D, the water, that one guy falling into that propeller, and the Kate Winslet drawing scene for obvious reasons.

username wrote:

BO-RING

I know, but I'll probably see it for that one scene though. Too bad that is all it really has going for it. I said some of the other stuff might be interesting to see in 3D but we've seen it in Avatar already so it won't be all that impressive. I really hope people who were so in love with the movie in 1997/1998 go see the re-release and realize that it really wasn't all that great. I've said it many times(maybe not here) but L.A. Confidential should have won best picture

joshwoodzy wrote:

I have yet to see anything in 3D because I don't care, but the people who call it a useless gimmick are kidding themselves. You know how much fucking money damn near anything in 3D is gonna make? Do you think they are doing it for any other reason? It's hollywood, guys.

I know 3D makes a ton of money and I am not against stuff being released in the 3D format. I think it is really interesting in some areas of film like sci-fi and action but I don't want to see stuff like Casablanca get re-released in 3D. I know that is an extreme but not every movie needs to be done in 3D. Also with new movies I don't want to see stuff like Woody Allen movies be done in 3D.

Berserk007 wrote:

(sigh) I heard that now Lucas wants to do full re releases of Star Wars in 3D and here I thought he couldn't rape the series anymore than he already did.

I remember reading about that back in 2005 after Episode 3 came out. Give me the original versions in 3D and we'll talk. I do not want to see Greedo shooting first in 3D! However most of the stuff in the Star Wars movies would look great in 3D. Going back to my previous point some stuff just works with 3D like sci-fi. Death Star trench run in 3D...fuck yeah! Lightsaber duels in 3D...fuck yeah. Princess Leia in that metal bikini...you get the idea. I know we shouldn't let George rape the series any further but Star Wars would be great in 3D.

However with Titanic only bits and pieces will be good in 3D. The water looking as if it was coming right at you and most of the sinking sequences could look good in 3D but all the other drama parts before the ship even hits the iceberg would just be boring to me in 3D. The shots where the ship is coming towards the camera would be interesting in 3D, but most of the dramatic scenes before and during the iceberg/sinking I just don't see working well in 3D.

AtmanRyu wrote:

IceWarm wrote: joshwoodzy wrote: I have yet to see anything in 3D because I don't care, but the people who call it a useless gimmick are kidding themselves. You know how much fucking money damn near anything in 3D is gonna make? Do you think they are doing it for any other reason? It's hollywood, guys. I know 3D makes a ton of money and I am not against stuff being released in the 3D format. I think it is really interesting in some areas of film like sci-fi and action but I don't want to see stuff like Casablanca get re-released in 3D. I know that is an extreme but not every movie needs to be done in 3D. Also with new movies I don't want to see stuff like Woody Allen movies be done in 3D. Exactly my point! Titanic is about 3 hours long (half romance/half disaster) with, what, 30 minutes of scenes that might "benefit" from 3D? And speaking of gimmick: Quote: Gimmick: In marketing language, a gimmick is a quirky feature that distinguishes a product or service without adding any obvious function or value. Thus, a gimmick sells solely on the basis of distinctiveness and may not appeal to the more savvy or shrewd customer. So yes, 3D movies make more money than regular ones for one reason: IT COSTS MORE. I can at least understand if it's an action flick that's having the 3D effect, but yeah, not every fricking movie has to be in 3D to make it enjoyable.

Thank you! I liked Avatar, it was not a bad movie but I hate how the media spins it to say how much money it made(and I hated how this was brought up during the Academy Awards...box office total should not be a factor or even a bullet point during the Academy Awards) and they leave out the part about the higher ticket price. A matinee at the theater I go to is $7.25, there is an additional $3 for a movie in 3D. It costs about $9 to see a nighttime show, and again $3 more for 3D. So you're looking at $10.25-$12.25(and these are fairly small town prices) for a movie in 3D. When I saw Titanic it was about $4.50 for a matinee and $7 for a nighttime show. Interestig list here with movie bx office totals adjusted for inflation: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

hobojoe44 wrote:

IceWarm wrote: ... However with Titanic only bits and pieces will be good in 3D. The water looking as if it was coming right at you and most of the sinking sequences could look good in 3D but all the other drama parts before the ship even hits the iceberg would just be boring to me in 3D. The shots where the ship is coming towards the camera would be interesting in 3D, but most of the dramatic scenes before and during the iceberg/sinking I just don't see working well in 3D. Then a edutainment movie (theme parks and science centers) should be made, that's if one hasn't been made yet. You know the 10 -15 min 3D movies where at theme parks the seats move and cold air from the chair sprays in you face.

You really want James Cameron to make a "ride" out of Titanic? Here is how it will go, very smooth for about 5 minutes, we get to see some of the classic scenes and all of a sudden the ride shakes violently and then fills up with freezing water....The End.

username wrote:

ha, the titanic sequel 'preview' is already 10 times better than the original movie

Yeah, that could actually make a decent movie.