Titanic 2012

1
we talked about it briefly here but it appears it's about more than 3D...
THR wrote:James Cameron Wows CineEurope With First Footage of 'Titanic 3D'
Frame-by-frame conversion of 1997 blockbuster relaunches world-wide in April 2012.

James Cameron bowled over international exhibitors Tuesday night with exclusive footage of his 3D conversion of 1997 blockbuster Titanic.

Cameron showed nearly 15 minutes of footage to exhibitors in Amsterdam at an industry event that has proven a lucky charm for the director in the past. The scenes Cameron screened included the "King of the World" money shot of Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet on the prow of the speeding ship and jaw-dropping 3D images of Titanic's engine room. The exhibitors greeted Titanic 3D with whoops, cheers and applause.

"It ends the same way, though, I just wanted to put that out," said Cameron, joking that even after the painstaking frame-by-frame process, still ongoing, of makingTitanic three dimensional, he is still an opponent of 2D to 3D conversions. "Actually we spent around $5 million trying to invent a time machine so I could travel back and shoot the original film in 3D," Cameron quipped. "It's a painstaking process. I would never want to do it if I didn't have to. If you have the choice, you should definitely do it in 3D from the start."

20th Century Fox is re-releasing Titanic 3D in April 2012 to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the original tragedy. Cameron said that the timing of the release, 15 years after the film's first bow, would give audiences an opportunity to see the movie on the big screen, many of them for the first time.

"There is a huge audience that has never seen Titanic on the big screen," he said. "There's a huge number who weren't born when it first came out. I actually think there is a huge number of people who were born because of Titanic because it is such a great date movie." Cameron emphasized that the new release was not just about 3D. Before starting the conversion process, he created a 4k digital master of the original 35mm Titanic print, a master that will be used to deliver new, cleaner versions of the film in all formats - including 2D and 35 mm. "This is more about Titanic returning to the theaters than just 3D," Cameron said.

"Titanic was a big screen experience. Titanic didn't set records in home video, it set records in the theaters. Especially international, where it made double the national box office." Cameron reflected on how European exhibitors conference CineEurope, which turns 20 this year, has been the site of so many "major milestones in my life and career." He recalled how in 1997 he screened the first promo reel of Titanic here. In 2005, he returned to talk up the future potential of 3D. And three years ago, Cameron was back in Amsterdam, this time to screen a promo reel of a risky new 3D film called Avatar.

"When I showed Titanic here (in 1997) it was a terrible time in my life. I was being excoriated in the press," Cameron recalled. "If you remember at the time, it was the '3 hour chick flick where everyone knew the ending.' They were saying 'I don't think so' but the international exhibition community saw something in that reel and they, together with 20th Century Fox, turned Titanic into an international hit."

Cameron is hoping for big things the second time around too. He cited the rapid rollout of 3D cinemas in previously barren markets such as Russia and Eastern Europe to argue that lightning could strike twice for Titanic 3D. "There are huge markets in Eastern Europe, in Russia, that have never seen this film except on pirated DVDs. Now there are thousands of 3D screens and audiences in Russia, Eastern Europe, in China who have never seen this film on the big screen."

Judging by the enthusiastic response of CineEurope attendees at the screening, Cameron has Europe's theater owners behind him as Titanic 3D prepares to set sail. "Titanic broke all the rules and it broke all the records," Cameron said in closing. "Let's break all the rules again and let's break all the records again."
i never saw it in the theater and only saw it years later after being forced to. have to say, it wasn't nearly as awful as it was made out to be. thinking back to all the lush interior shots, the insane exterior shots - particularly of the destruction - i'm seeing myself pay to see this in 4k 3D. plus, kate winslet naked in 3D. yeah.

Re: Titanic 2012

2
The part with the ship going down was all pretty nicely done, yeah. But after Avatar I think I'm pretty much done with Cameron, he's just another Lucas, gimmie a standard framework of a story so I can hang a bunch of techie shit on it.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Titanic 2012

3
Alexhead wrote:The part with the ship going down was all pretty nicely done, yeah. But after Avatar I think I'm pretty much done with Cameron, he's just another Lucas, gimmie a standard framework of a story so I can hang a bunch of techie shit on it.
yeah, i assume this goes without saying. i don't think anyone is going to accuse either of them of being consumate story tellers.

Re: Titanic 2012

4
I still get bitter when I look back at American Graffiti and Star Wars, because he captured lightning in a bottle with lots of character and heart infused into what, at that point, were two fairly low-class (teen rebel/racecar and sci-fi) genres. I wonder sometimes if that pattern would have continued if he, like Spielberg, continued to make movies throughout the 80s and 90s. Instead he went techie and corporate and forgot why/how he made movies in the first place.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Titanic 2012

6
Alexhead wrote:I still get bitter when I look back at American Graffiti and Star Wars, because he captured lightning in a bottle with lots of character and heart infused into what, at that point, were two fairly low-class (teen rebel/racecar and sci-fi) genres.
I've read interviews with Lucas where he pretty much dismisses American Graffiti and even disses it. It claims after TXH1138 wasn't a huge hit he realized people liked films better where their emotions were easily manipulated by the characters. He claims he just did it to prove he could make a hit film people would like but really had no interest in doing it. The tone of the interview was almost a "yeah, I can easily do a film for the simpletons if I wanted to."
Look at Star Wars. After the first one he pretty much turned over the writing duties, as well as directing to someone else because he was so uninterested. Really, the last film he really made before Phantom Menace was the original Star Wars. After that other than shaping the initial story he wasn't as involved in the creative parts. So I don't think continuing to make films would have really changed much.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Titanic 2012

8
so i saw this today. took the kids who weren't alive when it first came out. IMAX was sick. the 3D was not even really noticeable, didn't add shit (thus proving that even the "master" 3D artist cameron can't make an up-convert work for shit). movie was the same (except for now the correct sky is above them when they are all dying). so yeah, i never saw it when it came out and it was cool to see something that massive in IMAX. enjoyable, with the exceptions of the issues that exist in the film itself.

Re: Titanic 2012

9
I've been driving the wife crazy the past week yammering on about Titanic (lots of stories coming across the wire at work, for one thing). I sure wouldn't mind seeing it again — funny how time helps you forget whatever gripes you may have had a decade and a half ago. But neither of us is interested in forking over the fee for 3-D, let alone sitting still for 3+plus hours in the presence of the great unwashed.

DVDs of the movie seem to have been pulled from stores/online, no doubt in anticipation of the inevitable Blu-ray release.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: Titanic 2012

10
Never seen it in the theater, never well. Gotta have some standards. I saw it once on HBO in a hotel and it was painful enough to get through then. I thing I somehow acquired the dvd somewhere but it's till unopened.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Titanic 2012

12
_Marcus_ wrote:An absolutely despicable film in every way. One of the worst I've endured in my lifetime.
it's fluff. i don't get how it's the worst film ever. if what you say is true - that this is one of the worst you've ever seen - you are a lucky man. oh, and you should probably get out more or invest in cable. there are some incredibly terrible films out there to enjoy, particularly on the SyFy channel. :D

Re: Titanic 2012

13
Here's how I saw Titanic 3D, on opening weekend--with my 9 year old daughter, who has become something of a Titanic freak over the last year or two with lots of books being read and a gleeful excitement to see this growing ever since she saw the first trailer before Hugo back in November. And I have to say, the same childlike enthusiasm for the topic is obviously what Cameron brought to the endeavor, and I can respect that. This was his dream film, and in order to make it happen he yoked together a somewhat generic but still entertaining doomed love story so he could push it out to the masses and not just make a Titanic docudrama like you've seen on Discovery Channel and PBS all weekend. I guess you can see it as awful for said generic love story, Bill Paxton and his crew, Celine Dion, etc. But I found it entertaining and educational when I saw it back in '96 and felt pretty much the same seeing it again. It's a big Hollywood movie and you can pump rounds into it all day and night for that, however if you accept it for what it is then I think it's just fine, and there is a lot of love up on the screen from a guy who made the one movie I think he ever wanted to make. Dude's a prick of the first water yet he made some of the best big budget entertainments of my youth and I don't have to work in a cubicle next to him or anything so I don't worry about that end of it so much. It remains pretty stunning that it was going to be the biggest money-losing flop of all time while the set reports came out and went on to become Top 10 all-time with every Oscar you can shake a stick at, too. Probably too much ego-swell for a guy who didn't need it in Cameron, but it's still an epic filmmaking story to go along with an epic historical event.

The 3D conversion is as mentioned above totally useless, as I've decided most 3D is aside from a few moments in the awful Avatar and a lot of the mediocre story/great eye candy Tron: Legacy.

On a side note, we tried to go to the Molly Brown historical museum--her old house in downtown Denver--today but of course it was long sold out, that's what I get for last minute planning. We'll be hitting it soon though, will report back if it's cool. Instead we saw an IMAX 3D flick on tornadoes (narrated by Bill Paxton, natch) that had hands-down the best storm/tornado footage you'll ever see.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Titanic 2012

14
TC wrote:
_Marcus_ wrote:An absolutely despicable film in every way. One of the worst I've endured in my lifetime.
it's fluff. i don't get how it's the worst film ever. if what you say is true - that this is one of the worst you've ever seen - you are a lucky man. oh, and you should probably get out more or invest in cable. there are some incredibly terrible films out there to enjoy, particularly on the SyFy channel. :D
In the light of how popular it is, how many Oscars it won and that it apparently is worthy of a 3D re-release and a fuck-ton of miniseries based on the same event, just because the film got released a few years back... Yeah, I'd say it's one of the worst films. You can obviously say every Troma movie ever made is eons worse, but they don't have that budget, that cast, that director, that studio backing.

Ok, let's just say it's one of the worst big budget films ever. Especially since it pretends for three hours or so that it's a way better film than it actually is.

Re: Titanic 2012

15
Buzzfeed wrote:This Insane Fan Theory About “Titanic” Will Blow Your Mind

A Titanic fan just proposed an amazing theory about Jack’s true purpose in the film that might change how you see the movie forever.

According to the theory, Jack was actually a time traveler.

And he was only on the Titanic to save Rose from committing suicide, and altering time forever.

“This may seem ridiculous but think about it for a moment… if Rose jumped to her demise then the ship would have stopped to look for her,” the writer said.

The temporary delay would lead to warmer weather, and the Titanic likely would never have hit the iceberg.

Which is why Jack spent so much time with Rose, in order to ensure her survival.

Here’s the evidence: First, Jack doesn’t have any currency for this time period, so he has to gamble in order to get the ticket at all.

He mentions fishing at Lake Wissota — a man-made lake that was built in 1917, five years after the Titanic sank.

His haircut and rucksack were completely out of place for the era, with the latter being popularized in the 1930s.

And he tells Rose he’ll take her on the roller coaster on the Santa Monica Pier, which wouldn’t even be built until 1916.

So the only logical conclusion is that Jack must be a time traveler.

Or James Cameron hired some budget fact checkers.
titanic is a sci-fi movie.

Re: Titanic 2012

16
Of course that begs the question as to why a time traveler would want Titanic to hit the iceberg? That's where you could really have fun with theories. Mine is that Jack is exec at Fox. In the original timeline, after True Lies, Cameron's next film was Avatar. But without the technology in the '90s to make the film we know, he had to resort to hand puppets. The difficultly working with them caused shooting to last four years and the budget to go over $700,000,000. People tried to make him listen to reason, but Cameron's ego couldn't be denied as would happen when filming Titanic in the new timeline. Upon release, without the fancy 3d and cgi, people realized the film was just a shitty retelling of Dances With Wolves and it was met with a yawn. Fox, as well as a large part of the Hollywood studio system were destroyed by bankruptcy. All during the filming, Cameron had been talking about how he always wanted to make a disaster love story set on a ship. So in a last ditch effort to save the studio and have Cameron make that film instead, they sent one of their interns back in time to find a ship to sink in a flashy way to inspire him. Being a studio flack, Jack knew how to manipulate the press. He planted the articles about the Titanic being unsinkable to get the name out there, then proceeded as in the theory to cause the ship to be sunk. History was altered, we got a different shitty, yet popular, Cameron film and Hollywood was saved. Hollywood salutes you brave Jack the intern for saving it from ruin. But it snubbed him in the in memoriam segment at the Oscars that year.
Just cut them up like regular chickens