Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How James Cameron Pumped Volume Into Titanic

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the really-big-hose dept.

Movies 289

MrSeb writes with ExtremeTech's account of how director (and deep sea explorer) James Cameron spent a reported $18 million converting his blockbuster movie, Titantic, to 3D. The article "looks at the primary way of managing depth in 3D films (parallax), how you add depth to a movie that was originally filmed in 2D, and some of the software (both computer and human-brain) difficulties that Cameron had to overcome in the more-than-two-year process to convert Titanic into 3D."

cancel ×

289 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wonderful, but... (5, Insightful)

Brooklynoid (656617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615977)

...who really wanted to see Titanic in 3D?

Re:Wonderful, but... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615983)

Everyone's wife, mother, sister, girlfriend, etc.

Re:Wonderful, but... (5, Funny)

aztektum (170569) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616425)

Not my wife or girlfriend, thankfully.

Re:Wonderful, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616481)

It is interesting that your girlfriend has similar tastes to your wife.
Yet neither share the taste of your sister or mother whom you did not mention and I assume want a 3D Titanic.

Re:Wonderful, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616613)

lol, my wife hates 3D movies. But I like taking the glasses, they have interesting properties especially when combined with lasers... The movie isn't worth the money but the glasses are cool...

Re:Wonderful, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615999)

Thousands of teenage girls lusting after an unattainable crush.

Re:Wonderful, but... (4, Funny)

djl4570 (801529) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616181)

What? The diamond of unusual size?

Re:Wonderful, but... (5, Funny)

MDillenbeck (1739920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616617)

I'd much rather see Rodents of Unusual Size in 3D.... but then again, they don't exist. ;)

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616635)

As do most of the dangers of the fire swamp... :)

Re:Wonderful, but... (2)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616009)

Exactly. 3D has failed big time, but Titanic 3D is attracting lots of people. I made a separate comment about it: Is it because it's Titanic the movie or is it that it is in 3D? Would a re-release of the original movie be a big hit?

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616145)

Considering the movie has made almost 2 billion dollars world wide, I'm guessing a release would do just fine. If anything he could milk it even more by doing new tie-ins and following a slower release schedule.

Re:Wonderful, but... (3, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616167)

I'd guess the 3d bit is a convenient excuse for some people to see it again.

What I want to know is, how much are they going to make on an $18m investment? I'm sure it costs more than that when you figure in promotion and such, but still, it cost $200 million the first time around and grossed $1.8 billion.

I'm going to guess they make a killing on this.

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616373)

You would not believe the expenses that occurred for that version of the Titantic. If you ask anybody who was due a percentage of the film, it lost money. Besides the costs of filming and wages, there were accounting fee's, lawyer's, lawsuits, various copyright and licensing fee's, marketing fee's, and so on, not just in the US, but also for every single country which showed the picture.

Re:Wonderful, but... (5, Informative)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616405)

Thats more creative accounting than anything. It cost 208 million, marketing, accounting, everything included.

Hollywood companies publish the real numbers in their shareholders reports, one of which happened directly before the titanic movie was released in theatres.

It was only after the fact that they came up with the other shit. Like they always do.

If you talk to anyone, ever, who was due a cut of profits in hollywood, they'll tell you their film lost money. Yet somehow Warner, Universal, Sony etc manage to stay in business and have so much cash that they can spend upwards of 100m a year just on people to talk to people in washington.

If you look at the records, almost every single film they produce loses money. The ones that don't make a very meager profit.

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616629)

I'd guess the 3d bit is a convenient excuse for some people to see it again.

I wish theaters would re-show good movies now and then.

(*good* movies)

Is there some economic reason they don't do it? Maybe the studios are afraid you won't go see their new cr*p if there's a proven classic on?

Re:Wonderful, but... (4, Interesting)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616739)

The reason is called "home video." Before the VCR came along, studios would periodically do revival showings of popular older films in theaters. But when home video made the entire Hollywood back catalog available for viewing anywhere anytime, the economic rationale for re-releasing classics in theaters disappeared.

Re:Wonderful, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616221)

I'd just like to see it again. It still remains the only movie I've ever been to the cinema to see twice (as I believe is the case for quite a number of people). If you're willing to buy into the schmaltzy storyline (which I had no problem with) it's an incredible spectacle. I'd actually prefer to see it again in 2D, but if 3D is all that's on offer, I'll take it.

Re:Wonderful, but... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616397)

3D hasn't failed, it's just succumbed to the usual Hollywood profiteering. They do it every time the technology comes around. Initially the first films are great, but before too long you end up with things that are converted to 3D to get on the bandwagon and the quality suffers. Eventually they get so bad that people are no longer willing to pay the premium.

There's also the issue of movies already being in 3D when shot properly. The human mind can do an amazing job of creating volume where there is none based upon what it knows about the scene that's being shown from the parallax and depth of focus.

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616467)

Poorly rushed crappy post-production 3D has failed. Movies filmed in 3D have made bank. I just hope Hollywood identifies this trend and stops with the crappy post-production 3D.

Re:Wonderful, but... (4, Interesting)

Forever Wondering (2506940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616601)

Exactly. 3D has failed big time, but Titanic 3D is attracting lots of people. I made a separate comment about it: Is it because it's Titanic the movie or is it that it is in 3D? Would a re-release of the original movie be a big hit?

3D has not failed big time. Avatar at $1.6B is one of the most successful films of all time.

I think it's fair to point out that people were saying the same thing about color TV in the 1960's: It's a fad--who needs it.

If you adjusted the color for one station/network so that flesh tones were natural, they were yellow on other channels because there was no agreed upon standard on which to base this and each network did its own thing. Eventually, the standards were developed and each station/network adopted them, which is why, today, you can channel surf and never need to adjust it [if you even can on a modern TV set].

It took at least a decade to achieve this, perhaps longer.

The same thing happened when "colorization" technology first arrived. Originally, it was used [badly] to colorize B&W movies because someone [Ted Turner] thought that people would not watch B&W movies anymore. A particularly horrific attempt was the colorization of the [original] Edmund O'Brien version of D.O.A.

Eventually, it was realized that this was a solution in search of a problem. And the true problem to be solved by this technology was eventually discovered: restoral of faded color films. In fact, even B&W films benefit from this. Look at any recent DVD releases of classic films and you'll usually see that the entire film has been "digitally remastered".

I can assure you that there are many players in the video technology field that are placing heavy longterm investments on 3D.

Also, there are advantages to shooting a movie in 3D, even you only ever intend to release it in 2D (e.g. better control of depth of focus, etc.). Thus, 3D will be here to stay [as will shooting digitally vs film], if only for mastering/editing.

Something that was once known as "Seward's Folly" is now known as something called "Alaska" ...

Re:Wonderful, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616677)

3D fails in plenty of ways.

Avatar was good and done properly (eg it didn't make me feel sick after 20 minutes)

Other stuff I've seen in 3D, just throws crap at the audience and at that point the immersiveness is broken and the headache begins.

The Nintendo 3DS is very interesting because it's glasses-free, so when you rewatch the Shrek or Monsters versus Aliens clips on it, you actually see the parallax problem made worse. I don't know if Dreamworks is just being lazy, but Shrek is quite possibly the worst 2D to 3D conversion because it looks like a frigging pop-up book where you see two or three flat layers on top of each other. If anything it makes the movie so much less watchable.

But other films converted to 3D look like this, and I can't help but think that some of these companies are just being dickishly lazy or cheap. So for this reason alone, I'm not willing to see ANY movie converted to 3D.

Even on the 3DS, the 3D effect works best when it ads depth instead of making things fly out of the screen. Because when you play a game, you tend to tilt the 3DS and lose the 3D effect when you try to look around the 3D object.

And that's why current 3D fails. Until such time that the 3D becomes volumetric, where you can see it in 360 degrees, it shouldn't be called 3D. If anything it's stereographic film (yes I know that doesn't sound as cool as "3D", but we previously called "3D" things that were done with CGI.)

Re:Wonderful, but... (4, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616019)

You haven't ever wondered what a young Kate Winslets breasts and pubic mound looked like in 3d?

Re:Wonderful, but... (0, Flamebait)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616051)

nope.. when I saw the title 'titanic' I assumed it was an action/disaster flick.. instead it was a shitty love story.. even terminator 1 and 2 do not make up for this trash.

Re:Wonderful, but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616087)

Some shitty geeks can never get over something that's ultimately not that big of a deal. How could Titanic be a straight up action movie, you moron? Aliens and Icebergs?

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616231)

Some shitty geeks can never get over something that's ultimately not that big of a deal. How could Titanic be a straight up action movie, you moron? Aliens and Icebergs?

Hi I'm from the MPAA and I would like to option your Aliens and Icebergs story here for the next AVP installment. Please write up a 50 page treatment and email it to me in the next 2 weeks.

john@mpaa.org

Re:Wonderful, but... (4, Funny)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616271)

AvP: What Really Happened on Titanic. Directed by Michael Bay.

Kill me now.

Re:Wonderful, but... (5, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616717)

Oh, it's there. [youtube.com] Love the updated soundtrack.

Re:Wonderful, but... (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616361)

The Poseidon Adventure?

normal people, shit happens, get out alive, its pretty fucking simple douche

Re:Wonderful, but... (4, Insightful)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616551)

Titanic works for both men and women. For women, it's pretty obviously a love story about the poor little rich girl who falls in love with a man beneath her social stature and the trials and tribulations that they go through to be together.

For men, it has explosions, breasts, and a snobs versus the slobs storyline--think "Caddyshack on the High Seas."

See? It has everything!

Re:Wonderful, but... (3, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616577)

nope.. when I saw the title 'titanic' I assumed it was an action/disaster flick.. instead it was a shitty love story.. even terminator 1 and 2 do not make up for this trash.

Um... Terminator 1 was also a love story, or didn't you notice?

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616687)

Nope.

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616725)

Watch it again. The vast majority of the film focuses on the interaction between Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese. Arnold's character has far less screen time (and the crappy stop-motion Terminator endoskeleton appears for about 30 seconds total).

Re:Wonderful, but... (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616133)

Nope, but even then this won't show you.

This is that crappy cut-out-silhouettes pseudo-3d. Think paper dolls at various depths, but each individual doll is flat.

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616273)

Actually, no as it turns out.

And that's a pretty specific fetish to justify spending $18 million.

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616117)

...who really wanted to see Titanic in 3D?

Exactly. I mean... what's the point? What in the world would converting this movie to 3D do for it? It wasn't specifically shot for 3D, which we all know usually makes it a bland experience.

So other than being able to charge more money on top of the ridiculously high ticket prices we already have, what is the real benefit?

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616175)

So other than being able to charge more money on top of the ridiculously high ticket prices we already have, what is the real benefit?

do you really think they need any other motivation?

Re:Wonderful, but... (1)

kelarius (947816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616521)

...who really wanted to see Titanic in 3D?

Anyone that wants to see 1997 Kate Winslet's bosom in 3-D. Don't lie, you're tempted...

Re:Wonderful, but... (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616563)

Well, it might actually add at least virtual depth to the characters.

Re:Wonderful, but... (4, Insightful)

MDillenbeck (1739920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616615)

Just got done watching a Research Channel vid on youtube with Neil deGrasse Tyson. In it he told a story about Titanic where he talked about Cameron using a sub to check out the details of the Titanic to keep it authentic. However, with the scene near the end why the kid chooses to drown, he noticed that the night sky was not only wrong but the left side was a mirror of the right side. Thus, Tyson wrote Cameron a letter about it. Later, he met up with Cameron and decided to bring up the point, and Cameron mentioned how many billions it made and asked how much more the right sky would make him. Yet, that is not the end of the story. Years later Tyson gets a call - its some Hollywood type who says he's working with Cameron on updating Titanic and that Tyson would have a night sky for him. His next words had so much heartfelt emotion in them "YES!".

So, I guess anyone who wants to see Tyson's accurate night sky will go and see it...

Re:Wonderful, but... (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616623)

...who really wanted to see Titanic in 3D?

I never understood the public's continued fascination with the Titanic.

As for the 3D movies, please quit going to see them, so they'll let the format die.

3d (1)

deysOfBits (2198798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615979)

what shite

shit as slashdot (0)

deysOfBits (2198798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615985)

The more I use slashdot the more I think it's turning into shit

I wish there was something anything better

Any recommendations out there? Anonymous responses are ok. Thanx much.

Re:shit as slashdot (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616645)

The more I use slashdot the more I think it's turning into shit

I wish there was something anything better

Any recommendations out there? Anonymous responses are ok. Thanx much.

Have you tried Slashdot 3D?

Most importantly, are Kate Winslet's tits in 3d? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615981)

Nothing else matters if they can't get naked Kate to look right.

Re:Most importantly, are Kate Winslet's tits in 3d (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616115)

+5 Insightful. And informative too!

Re:Most importantly, are Kate Winslet's tits in 3d (5, Funny)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616235)

My wife made me go see it with her. For the record, they were glorious.

Re:Most importantly, are Kate Winslet's tits in 3d (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616403)

How do you think this project got started? Skunkworks require motivation.

Re:Most importantly, are Kate Winslet's tits in 3d (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616647)

I hope they hired Kate as an engineering consultant for that project. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

Re:Most importantly, are Kate Winslet's tits in 3d (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616587)

Remember, the hands drawing the dirty pictures of her in that scene are James Cameron's [imdb.com] .

All that work... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615989)

And yet nothing of value was added.

Is Titanic the 3D breakthrough? (3, Interesting)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615993)

I'm somewhat confused by the success of the 3D "remake" of Titanic, considering that 3D has been a massive failure so far. The market (not counting a tiny niche of enthusiasts) has rejected 3D at the movies, on game consoles, on TVs, etc. Sales started out decently, but took a major hit, and there just doesn't seem to be any interest in 3D.

So when 3D Titanic is such a success (at least for now), is that because people are just thrilled to see a "classic" again at the movies, or is the 3D genuinely sparking people's interest? Is it the 3D that is causing people to buy tickets? And if so, why did just about everything else 3D fail so far?

Is this the resurrection of Titanic the movie, or the 3D experience?

Avatar (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616025)

By the way, I watched Avatar in 3D. I hated it. It didn't add anything to the movie. If anything, it detracted from it. The article mentions Avatar as a learning experience for Titanic 3D, which makes me wonder even more. Did they fix Titanic 3D so that it actually adds something this time? Is that why it's such a hit?

Re:Avatar (3, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616213)

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, people said the same thing about color. Color film (vs B&W) is a more "real-life" experience. Evidence suggests that "real-life" experience has a lot to do with movies - from color, to picture quality, to positional audio. 3D is a (if not the) next logical step.

To be honest, I thought Avatar was a masterfully executed film, if a bit cliched. It's certainly cohesive and "all-encompassing" in a way that few movies are. It's a shame the plot was so pedestrian. The 3D made the movie impressive, but since it seemed like a tech demo more than a proper flick, it came at the expense of me wanting to watch it again in 2D. By comparison, black&white never stopped me watching Casablanca, or Citizen Kane.

But there's all sorts of movies that are a lot of fun, if "safe". I can't exactly call them bad, in the same way that I can't call any of those Sundance films bad despite the fact that they're so boring. It's just a different kind of movie.

Re:Avatar (2)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616323)

Color actually added something to movies, I think. And if I am not mistaken, the mass market did not outright reject it, unlike 3D.

Re:Avatar (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616393)

The mass market hasn't rejected 3D either. Many of us did, sure, but if there wasn't lots of profit to be had in it then they would not still be making them.

Re:Avatar (2)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616517)

3D is a (if not the) next logical step.

What about smell-o-vision [wikipedia.org] . ;)

Re:Avatar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616549)

Bbbut I don't wear glasses in real life. I will boycott 3D until they can do it without glasses.

p.s. I'll also skip any individual 3D movie until someone I trust verifies that no shot in the film breaks the plane of the screen.

Re:Avatar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616659)

You would prefer for them to hand you contact lenses? (weighted of course so that the polarizing filter is aligned)

Re:Avatar (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616277)

That's kind of the way I am with 3D, I paid extra for this bonus and damit I am going to put more attention into the 3D than into the movie.

Captain Eo was the first movie like thing I ever saw in 3D, couldn't tell you shit about it, but do remember crap popping out of the screen at me

Couldn't be more different for me (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616339)

My jaw dropped on the first scene (you flyover the jungle) and my mind made the effect so realistic I had persistent motion sickness from about 15mins in. Every tracking shot, I felt like I was moving. Every new camera angle I felt like I teleported.

Then again, I'm a somewhat hedonistic yogic. I convinced my brain to perceive it as real.

Re:Is Titanic the 3D breakthrough? (2)

sdnoob (917382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616219)

the movie. 3d was just the excuse used to push for the re-release.

titanic 3d will be very successful, as it was 15 years ago in 2d. there is an entirely new generation of movie goers that have not seen one of most successful movies ever. being a historic piece, the story, plot and setting cannot be dated, so it will appeal to people today just as much as it did 15 years ago.

for those who have seen it before (many having done so multiple times), it is a chance to see it again in on the big screen, an experience no typical home theater setup can duplicate. those people would see it again (and again, and again) regardless of whether it was converted to 3d.

Re:Is Titanic the 3D breakthrough? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616439)

there is an entirely new generation of movie goers that have not seen one of most successful movies ever.

Have they been living in a cave someplace? Titanic has been out on DVD, and re-released multiple times in various editions - and it's been shown pretty regularly on cable.

Re:Is Titanic the 3D breakthrough? (2)

Orne (144925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616249)

I'm pretty sure that the interest in reviving the Titanic movie has more to do with the 100th anniversary of the original sinking of the Titanic on April 15th, 1912. It's like free advertising for everything Titanic-related. And, if there's any movie that squeezed more money from the public the first release, I can't think of it.

Re:Is Titanic the 3D breakthrough? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616399)

Is it the 3D that is causing people to buy tickets? And if so, why did just about everything else 3D fail so far?

The way it works is pretty basic: they only show the movie that people want to see in 3D and then charge a 50% mark-up on the ticket price "because it's in 3D".

This cranks up both profits and box-office statistics, at least for the studios. I suspect the theatres would do better with 2D and selling more $7 popcorn.

Re:Is Titanic the 3D breakthrough? (1)

Jyunga (2040832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616415)

The problem is the cheap 3D post-production jobs that have been done to drive out more 3D movies. Avatar was built around the idea of creating it with 3D in mind.... and James Cameron had a ton of money to throw into the process. Other movies that have tried to add 3D haven't been able to put forth that much effort and money so they've all been flopped attempts. Personally, I think 3D is something that's only going to work well with certain studios for certain movies. I expect the Hobbit will look absolutely stunning in 3D considering Peter Jackson has created 3D camera to allow him to see the end result of the 3D effect on his scenes in real-time.

Depth (4, Funny)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615995)

When I said that movie lacked depth...

Re:Depth (5, Funny)

RussR42 (779993) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616077)

I thought depth was kind of the problem... The Titanic had too much.

How much to make a good Titanic ride at Universal? (1)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616003)

I'd like to see a Titanic themed ride at Universal or whatever. Throw in some 1910s decorations. Some classical music. And then have it like a roller coaster or tower of terror but in sub zero degrees at one of the drops to simulate the ship plunging into the ocean.

my definition of good (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616021)

Does Leonardo DiCaprio embrace you at the end of the ride, because that would be DREAMY.

Re:How much to make a good Titanic ride at Univers (1, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616067)

I'd like to see a Titanic themed ride at Universal or whatever. Throw in some 1910s decorations. Some classical music. And then have it like a roller coaster or tower of terror but in sub zero degrees at one of the drops to simulate the ship plunging into the ocean.

Yes, yes. Let's take an incident that killed 1,500 people in the frozen waters of the North Atlantic and make it a ride. It's bad enough that Cameron turned the tragedy into some bogus "love story" - that scene in the water with Winslet and DiCaprio makes me want to puke - then the woman ditches the necklace into the open water with an "oops". Call me jaded, but I think the movie is a bigger tragedy than the actual event.

Re:How much to make a good Titanic ride at Univers (4, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616143)

Yes, yes. Let's take an incident that killed 1,500 people in the frozen waters of the North Atlantic and make it a ride. It's bad enough that Cameron turned the tragedy into some bogus "love story" - that scene in the water with Winslet and DiCaprio makes me want to puke - then the woman ditches the necklace into the open water with an "oops". Call me jaded, but I think the movie is a bigger tragedy than the actual event.

I'm guessing you're not going to like the "Springtime For Hitler" Experience either. Sort of like "Pirates of the Carribean", only with Nazis.

Re:How much to make a good Titanic ride at Univers (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616287)

There is always World Trade Center to treat in a similar manner a century later.

Re:How much to make a good Titanic ride at Univers (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616289)

Great idea! A steel coffin and a one-way trip down through three miles of water.

I've got a list of people *I* would buy tickets for.

wtf so much Cameron??? (0)

ffflala (793437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616035)

In the past three weeks I've seen dozens of stories about James Cameron, including one talking about how he's made three movies about the Titanic This person makes movies, for entertainment. This guy gets lots of money for doing this. This guy used some of his money to pay people to help him dive deeply, recently.

The next story should be this: JAMES CAMERON! (!) (!!!) will have an upcoming project. It involves the sea!!! You will pay money to watch it, if you're not already thanks to your $100/mo cable bill.

JAMES! CAMERON!!!!

The sooner we leave this old world media behind, the better. James Cameron: you're employing an old-school PR style, and the sooner your account managers' styles no longer make money, the better off our world will be.

Re:wtf so much Cameron??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616209)

I'm not sure this is 100% accurate. He's done over 30 dives down to the titanic over the years. Even AFTER he made the movie, he kept going down. He wanted to get the story right. He wanted to see what he got wrong in the movie itself.
 
It's one thing to do a bit of research, and then make a billion dollars and then drop the concept like a hot potato. This guy seems genuinely fascinated by the entire story, enough to keep pouring a good chunk of his money into it.
 
Let's agree to hate the movie, but respect the quest for knowledge behind the man who made it...k?

Re:wtf so much Cameron??? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616421)

Dude is cooler and much more accomplished than most of us. I'll let it slide.

Who cares? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616057)

I want to see Terminator 2 in 3D.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616513)

I want to see Terminator 2 in 3D.

especially if you add in the scene where Ahnold does the maid.

Oh wait, that was reality.

Most overrated film of the '90s (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616065)

OK, it drew a huge audience because it managed to be both a chick film and (at the time) a guy film with all of the special effects and geeky historical research. But the script and acting were mediocre, and the song that won the Grammy was weak.

The Poseiden Adventure [youtube.com] from the '70s was a much better film with a similar subject, on a much smaller budget.

Re:Most overrated film of the '90s (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616341)

So, to paraphrase it's overrated because a bunch of guys and girls went to see it and the theme song won a Grammy?

Re:Most overrated film of the '90s (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616401)

He's just trying to be edgy, which is pretty much the case for almost anyone suggesting something was overrated. Don't pay them any mind.

Re:Most overrated film of the '90s (1)

ktappe (747125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616545)

OK, it drew a huge audience because it managed to be both a chick film and (at the time) a guy film with all of the special effects and geeky historical research. But the script and acting were mediocre, and the song that won the Grammy was weak.

The Poseiden Adventure [youtube.com] from the '70s was a much better film with a similar subject, on a much smaller budget.

Having seen them both (and a couple thousand other films, as my cred.), no, Poseidon Adventure was not a better film than Titanic. It was staid 70's filmmaking with the cliche "group of survivors encounters various obstacles and die off one by one" ending. Go back a couple of decades and watch The Great Escape or Stalag 17. They do it way better than Poseidon.

Waste of time and money (0)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616079)

It is stellar in 2D. (Well, maybe Leo could have be casted better...) Making it 3D can only cheapen it.

I saw it - Recommend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616081)

I'm not a fan of sitting for 3+ hours for a theater movie ... yes I'll do it.

You just don't notice the time with this movie. That is the one thing i want to comment on.. the pacing holds up on a small tv or polished on the big screen, and

Yes the tits are 3D and they are magnificent.

TitanTic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616125)

I've never even heard of it...

A 3-D movie? Plot? Story Line? (1)

NReitzel (77941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616129)

*YAWN*

Another 3-D-ified movie. Another way to get eyeballs that want to fall out on the pavement and a stiff neck.

Remember Star-Trek the Movie? All sorts of special effects, because the film creators had no clue what an audience might want.

They just don't learn.

Personally... (0)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616131)

I would've used Gamemaker and a bit of sloppy logic to convert the film to 3d. Or, at least, that's what we True Programmers would do.

Re:Personally... (1)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616203)

Mel? Oh how you've fallen.

Can you imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616151)

The world we'd live in if rich people spent as much time and effort on worthwile things?

Re:Can you imagine (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616391)

The world we'd live in if rich people spent as much time and effort on worthwile things?

Yes, it's the one where you're king of the world and it's a dystopia.

Re:Can you imagine (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616509)

you mean like dedicating a signifigant portion of his life to advance the study of titanic and deep sea diving in the challenger deep?

you dont stay rich by spending all of your money, you gotta sell the milk to fund more important things

Titanic Super 3D (4, Funny)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616163)

Check out the (parody) trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJxj1mou03M [youtube.com]

make or break (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616165)

I don't know how many people have seen a 2D movie converted to 3D. I saw Lion King 3D and it seemed flat compared to other films original made in 3D. It might be my imagination, but the Christmas Carol seemed much more natural.

My thought, then, is if Titanic 3D is going to turn people of to converted 3D movies. This may the first movie of this type many will see, and there is a huge if misguided following for Titanic. Expectations are high and I don't think the technology is up to the expectations. Of course, many will accept whatever they are given, so it may have no effect.

Re:make or break (4, Informative)

dmomo (256005) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616193)

I saw this movie, not out of my own free will. I was impressed with the 3D. It was good, not over done and I could not believe it wasn't filmed that way.

It wasn't just a cheap shoe-horning of objects onto differing planes. I still don't think the 3d added value, but the tech itself was done right.

Re:make or break (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616505)

mod up, about time someone who actually saw it gave an opinion on what it was and not speculation on what they think its going to be.

One thought is, would you consider it flat, or was the depth realistic?

Only 18 million? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616187)

Thats like 1/40 the cost of making the movie again in 3D.

Everyone wonders why? Here's why (4, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39616429)

They spent 18 million reworking it to 3D. I haven't seen a lot of publicity so it's unlikely they spent more than 18 million for prints and advertizing. They made 17.4 million on the opening weekend just on domestic box office. It almost certainly will make 50 million domestic and could hit a 100 million although somewhere in the middle is more likely. Foreign is less for 3D but it sold strong overseas so it could match the US take. Break the numbers down and for a 36 million investment they get around 50 to 100 million back after you factor out the theater take. They either double or triple their money and that doesn't factor in a spike in DVD and Blu-rays since they are likely to also release a special addition. The studios are in it to make money not films. Why risk 18 million on a film that could bomb when they make 30 to 70 million in profit by recycling a hit? Disney survived through many bleak years after Walt died re-releasing old animated films.

Yes, 3D is nice but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616571)

... this is *still* four hours of boring romance followed by five minutes of ship sinking action. Technological wizardy can't save a crappy plot, just witness Voyager (Gilligan's Island in Space) and Avatar/Pocahontas.

The Passion of the Christ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39616719)

I'd love to see THAT movie in 3D. I mean, who wouldn't want to see Jesus' flesh being ripped apart in glorious 3D?

I feel like such a Jew... :(

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>