[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by UK Bladerunner

Who said I was going or was that just your assumption that I was?

I'll be honest, for me the film Titanic really only started to interest me as soon as the ship hit the ice berg (and even some of the events depicted after the collision are dubious). I found everything else before that point (including the god awful acting) was total and utter codswhallop.

Avatar or (Dances With Na'Vi) as I prefer to call it, to me was just an Action CGI 3D spectacle and little else. Again, poor acting, poor script and required very little imagination or originality to create.

So in the case of these two big money spinners Todd, I reckon you might just be right. If people want to go and pay full price to watch a very slight variation of originals then thats up to them.

The only movies I would go and see and pay full price for are those films which I really enjoy but never had the chance to see at the cinema first time round, maybe because I was too young at the time and thus want to capture the more superior cinematic experience for myself.

Blade Runner & Alien would be two such films.

No I assumed you wouldn't be going. That's why I don't understand what's there to complain about, angry smiley and all.

Whether you personally don't like Avatar or Titianic is besides the point then and all this handwringing over Hollywood studios trying to make a profit is rather naive. Hollywood is an industry, I don't know why many people won't understand that.


...and thanks for yet again reguritatating the most boring opinion parroted about Avatar on forums. Films are about more than just their basic plot. Cameron created a world which is as persuasive and detailed as that of Blade Runner and its plot is no more derivative than that of Alien.

When Alien came out, detractors who have difficulties forming their own opinions always felt obliged to point out that Alien is basically a rip off of the 50s sci-fi flick It! The Terror from Beyond Space , ignoring that Scott, Giger, etc brought a lot more to the table than its basic plot.

[CrackDown]

The more I watch Titanic, the more I think I prefer the first 2 thirds of the film to the ship sinking. But then I can be a sentimental fool sometimes who gets suckered into overly idealistic romance stories.

[IL Cattivo]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

No I assumed you wouldn't be going. That's why I don't understand what's there to complain about, angry smiley and all.

Whether you personally don't like Avatar or Titianic is besides the point then and all this handwringing over Hollywood studios trying to make a profit is rather naive. Hollywood is an industry, I don't know why many people won't understand that.


...and thanks for yet again reguritatating the most boring opinion parroted about Avatar on forums. Films are about more than just their basic plot. Cameron created a world which is as persuasive and detailed as that of Blade Runner and its plot is no more derivative than that of Alien.

When Alien came out, detractors who have difficulties forming their own opinions always felt obliged to point out that Alien is basically a rip off of the 50s sci-fi flick It! The Terror from Beyond Space , ignoring that Scott, Giger, etc brought a lot more to the table than its basic plot.

Don't get me wrong, I fully realise that Hollywood is an industry as is the video games market for example. But why do both these industries and others alike choose to charge full price for what is in effect a repeat viewing bar the odd cosmetic change or two.? This is what I have a problem with. Movies like Titanic and Avatar which have become huge blockbusters in their own right have made the studios massive amounts of money when they outed first time round. To me a 2nd outing with limited changes should not justify the same full price charge to the customer. I personally see it as a form of greed and not necessarily value for money when those movie goers and fans of the originals tend to go back for that 2nd double dip. Each to their own though I guess....

The only difference between Cameron's and Scott's 'persuasive' worlds is that James went the easy route of creating his nearly entirely using computer effects while Ridley painstakingly and cleverly created his without. I know which one of those two guys I have more respect for.. The Blade Runner world still looks superior and more realistic compared to Avatar's IMPO.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by UK Bladerunner

The only difference between Cameron's and Scott's 'persuasive' worlds is that James went the easy route of creating his nearly entirely using computer effects while Ridley painstakingly and cleverly created his without. I know which one of those two guys I have more respect for.. The Blade Runner world still looks superior and more realistic compared to Avatar's IMPO.

More ignorance.

I work in computer effects and animation. There is nothing "easy" about it. Joe Schmoe thinks you just press a button and it all happens by itself, but on the level that Cameron is working, it's just as painstaking, creative and "clever" as the physical effects of Blade Runner. When Blade Runner was made, it would have been impossible to create a world anything close like the one in Avatar unless you'd spent an unimaginable amount of money (and then it still would have been impossible).

I don't think either is superior. Visually and conceptually Avatar was breathtaking and apart from forum dwelling fanboys who hold on to firmly held prejudices rather than looking at what is on the screen and how it was acheived, critics and audiences seemed to agree. There is a reason why the film was hugely successful.

[emporer]

Well I'm looking forward to Titanic in 3d, although inevitably the same people will churn out the same old rubbish about Hollywood etc blah etc blah blah. The reason the studios put these films out is to make money, and alot of people will pay to see it again, I've got no issue in paying full price again to see it. I wonder if those that do have issue would feel the same about their weekly food shopping, ' I'm not paying the same because I paid the full amount last week!!! '

[IL Cattivo]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I work in computer effects and animation.

Good for you... May we catagorize you as being a CGI fanboy then? As you appear to be defending Avatar in such a manner judging by the specialized area of work you state you're in?

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I don't think either is superior. Visually and conceptually Avatar was breathtaking and apart from forum dwelling fanboys who hold on to firmly held prejudices rather than looking at what is on the screen and how it's achived, critics and audiences seemed to agree. There is a reason why the film was so hugely successful finacially, but also critically

Yep, undoubtedly it's CGI is what won the audiences and critics over and thus bought in the $$$.. (no surprise there..) Blown away they were. Personally I don't watch films one dimensionally, I don't assess or judge films purely for clever animations and effects. You can impress an audience all you like with CGI but that won't necessarily make it a good film if it's lacking in a good original plot, story, script and direction. Avatar distinctly lacked in all of those latter area's IMPO and it showed it when the Academy Awards were dished out last year..

Only 3 Oscars (and those in the obvious categories of Cinematography, Special Effects and Art Direction) are a poor return for such a financially successful movie. Didn't even win Best Motion Picture either... A non CGI film by the name of The Hurt Locker pulled that one in...and a few more others than Avatar too....

Financial & Critical reward doesn't necessarily mean it's a good film.

Now I believe this thread is about the movie Titanic that's going 3D in 2012... So I'll leave you to put it back on track chap....

[Todd Tomorrow]

So you think a film being a critical success isn't a sign of quality, but that Oscars wins are ?

[CrackDown]

Originally Posted by UK Bladerunner

a good original plot, story, script and direction. Avatar distinctly lacked in all of those latter area's IMPO

No matter how good a film looks, it would never rake in $2.8 billion with an unoriginal plot, poor story, and mediocre script. You disliked it because it was too generic, I understand that, but really the plot is a well-worn one that has been told for thousands of years and will continue to be told in the future. The story follows all the rules for an engaging blockbuster movie, and the script backed that up, making movie-goers around the world go back for more.

I love originality, and admire directors/writers who go have the balls to stand up to studios and say "this is how we're doing it" like Chris Nolan did with Inception, and Inception was a critical success, I personally loved it... but it still made $2 billion less than Avatar. It wasn't as globally embraced as Avatar or Titanic.

Don't worry about not wanting to be one of the "sheep" who likes these kinds of movies, we are all individuals and are all unique. Movies don't define us, so it's okay to let well-worn story entertain you as long as it's executed in an original way.

[wastedyuthe]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

More ignorance.

I work in computer effects and animation. There is nothing "easy" about it....

Well said that man.

Nothing wrong with CGI if done right, and in that case it was, and helped create a believable living world which many embraced. That was partly why the film was so successful.

What's wrong with filmmakers using CGI as a tool, just like model makers and stop motion animation?

Back on topic, I'll be interested to see Titanic 3D, but not at the cinema- I'll probably buy it on BD or something.

[raigraphixs]

Yesterday (Friday) a selection of people attending Empire 'Big Screen' at the O2, were treated to a selection of completed scenes in full 3D.

We were shown a selection of scenes that didn’t just highlight key stages of the ship’s journey towards the

 

bottom of the sea

, they also highlighted that, no matter how dark the action, state of the art, properly projected 3D delivers new depths to some very familiar scenes without any undesirable muddying.

These new clips suggest a 3D reworking that has the potential to reopen all those old wounds and bring on the emotion afresh. No director is more associated with 3D than Cameron and, arguably, no director employs it as well. The scenes that we saw today illustrated how any criticisms that naysayers generally throw at 3D productions will fall flat with this film. Even the night scenes were clear, with no added darkness, and there was little, if any, additional blurring or streaking as Jack and Rose dance their way across the lower class decks.

The 3D is particularly effective during the grand camera sweeps across the ship, but also as the Titanic

 

sinks

. Shots of the massive ship in the background with the dark sea and its victims in the foreground were particularly striking, but even the gentler scenes seemed fresh and alive. We were told that Cameron had already taken over a year on this 3D adaptation, and there is still more time to come before its release.

..................


A quick look at Empire Big Screen at O2 in full shaky-cam

BigScreen2011.mpg - YouTube

[raigraphixs]

[paul7]

No way! We had enough with the 2D....

[Geoff_D]

Can't wait to see this at the Waterloo IMAX. The film has more heart and soul in 24 frames than Avatar does in its entire run-time, so it could be quite an experience in 3D.

[raigraphixs]

First Re-Release Trailer

Titanic 3D - Official Trailer (HD) - YouTube

[lee667]

Does that mean we get to see kate winslet's lady bumps in 3D? lol

[CrackDown]

I'm there opening night. In real IMAX, of course.

[raigraphixs]

Titanic Featurette - YouTube

[Geoff_D]

Blimey, the movie looks stunning even in those mega-compressed Youtube clips.

For the inevitable Blu-ray release, I hope that we get to see the 'making of' documentary which was nixed by Cameron at the last minute from the SE DVD (some of it was chopped up into those little 'pod' featurettes).

[Steven]

Originally Posted by DICKIEDUVET

Will probably be my only chance to have Kate Winslet's ***'s in my face, I'll get the Mrs to buy it

You could catch an older Kate in 'Little Children' but tbh found the film a bore and pretentious

[emporer]

Watched the 3D trailer for the re-release today, its a must for anyone who likes 3D, this is how conversions should be done, every shot in the trailer looked as good as true 3D imo, if only the trailer for SW Ep 1 3D would have been this good then i'd be very happy.

Seriously looking forward to this now, hopefully the 3d blu will be here just as I finish my dedicated home cinema room.

[the boots man]

Where did you see the trailer in 3d mate?

[David 8]

Originally Posted by emporer

Watched the 3D trailer for the re-release today, its a must for anyone who likes 3D, this is how conversions should be done, every shot in the trailer looked as good as true 3D imo, if only the trailer for SW Ep 1 3D would have been this good then i'd be very happy.

I didn't really want to pay to see Titanic again but it sounds like I'll have to now.

[raigraphixs]

Spoliers

Viewer Discretion is Advised
The video page contains mature subject matter and is suitable for adults only.

Honest Trailers: Titanic - YouTube

[boksbox]

Originally Posted by the boots man

Where did you see the trailer in 3d mate?

I saw it on the SKY 3D channel, may not have been the full trailer though.

[barnaby jones]

Saw the 3D trailer before Wrath Of The Titans, have to say thought it looked fantastic.

[mckee74]

Watched it today.

I like Titanic, there I said it. I would have re-watched it just in 2D very happily. Had a lot of concerns that it would be bad in 3D - 15 years old, not a film made for, let alone in, 3D etc - just like the other post conversions we have had of late. Well, needn't have worried!

The 3D is incredible, it really is excellent. Even from the main titles I was impressed and although there were a few parts where I forgot I watching 3D when I did notice it I was amazed. If you have any interest in this movie (even if that is just seeing Kate Winslet), I can't see why you wouldn't be impressed by the 3D. Between this and Prometheus, I will have to get a 3D TV for the evantual Blu-ray release.

[Movie BEXtra]

I went to see this today and while i thoroughly enjoyed revisiting the film, especially on the big screen. I was unimpressed with the 3D aspect.

[s_inman]

I just can't decide if I want to go and see this? It's a great movie that I fully enjoy and I've never seen it in a cinema. Is it worth it even if your not a huge fan of 3D?

[TheyCallMeTJ]

Originally Posted by s_inman

I just can't decide if I want to go and see this? It's a great movie that I fully enjoy and I've never seen it in a cinema. Is it worth it even if your not a huge fan of 3D?

That's a difficult one to answer. I had seen a preview of this a few weeks back and the 3d effects are actually not too bad BUT its dark and you know how the last half of the film is dark in normal 2D, so in 3D its even darker. Its a shame because otherwise I would say YES its worth seeing this wonderful epic again on the big screen. For me it was still worth it but if there is is a 2D version showing, then definitely go.

[djpaulc247]

I went to see this last night with my girlfriend and really enjoyed it, it's a good film and as with any good film if I enjoy it and it gets a re-release, I'll go and watch it as you just can't beat watching a movie the way it was intended to be viewed - on the big screen. The point of not agreeing that the studios make more from a re-release is a stupid one as it's their movey, it's a business and they're entitled to profit from it - cinema release, DVD, Blu Ray, Special Editions, merchandise, etc are all there to make as much money as possible from the movie but if it's a good movie then why not?

As for the 3D element of Titanic I didn't think it added anything to the movie and thought it was quite poor, there was a little depth at times but for most of the film it just hurt my eyes and felt like I was watching with a pair of shades on. Still great to watch it at the cinema though and I thoroughly enjoyed it

Also, there was a girl sat next to me who was crying for about an hour and half of the movie! She'll probably need tear replacement therapy