TITANIC 3D- Does anybody plan to see it?

[Mijin]

@ralph124c

I also like how the electric lights stayed on, even though they were all under salt water. Were there any shots of the electric generators shorting out/blowing up?

There was such a shot but it was blink and you’ll miss it.

And the point in the film where the lights went out was faithful to eyewitness accounts.

[Colophon]

Do 3D films actually look that different to normal films? The glasses never work for me, but I’m struggling to see how they could look much different. Watching a film on a screen doesn’t look “flat”.

[WhyNot]

@ralph124c

I hope the 3-D version includes more shots of china falling on the floor, serving carts moving on the tilted floors, champagne bottles smashing, etc.

Sorry. The only change to the content is that, thanks to the input of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the starry sky behind Rose’s head is now correct to the night, instead of the fanciful symmetrical sky originally used. Science triumphs over art, I guess.

I also like how the electric lights stayed on, even though they were all under salt water. Were there any shots of the electric generators shorting out/blowing up?

Yes, when Rose is walking around below decks about thigh deep in water. Lots of sparking and things going “fwoomp” (similar to that not-realistic sound effect they use when stadium lights are turned on in movies.) So I think it was when Jack was handcuffed to the pipe, but I could be wrong about that. We even get an exterior shot of the ship, and all the lights in the portholes and on deck go out.

Of course, there’s the bluish “night” lighting used after that, but that’s an accepted Hollywood cheat. You can’t really film in actual dark very effectively.

[Mijin]

@WhyNot

Yes, when Rose is walking around below decks about thigh deep in water. Lots of sparking and things going “fwoomp” (similar to that not-realistic sound effect they use when stadium lights are turned on in movies.) So I think it was when Jack was handcuffed to the pipe, but I could be wrong about that. We even get an exterior shot of the ship, and all the lights in the portholes and on deck go out.

It’s more than that. I’m sure (though I can’t double-check right now) there is a 2-second or so shot of an engineer somewhere in the bowels of the ship doing some work on the generator and getting a big shock immediately prior to the lights going out.
I don’t know if in real life there really was an engineer still down there, but the point at which the lights went out was accurate, at least according to the documentaries I’ve seen.

[kittenblue]

@ralph124c

I hope the 3-D version includes more shots of china falling on the floor, serving carts moving on the tilted floors, champagne bottles smashing, etc.
I also like how the electric lights stayed on, even though they were all under salt water. Were there any shots of the electric generators shorting out/blowing up?

None of those shots seemed to have any extra-special 3-D quality to them. No one in the audience flinched.

[MaxTheVool]

@Lasciel

And I do still dislike Celine - nothing personal - I just don’t like her style of music. Not having seen the film, how was I to know that she wasn’t singing all the way through?

Well, no skin off my back one way or the other, but (a) Celine only sings over the closing credits, and (b) it’s a really entertaining movie, but (c) it might at this point just be totally impossible for you to fairly enjoy it, so (d) whatevs.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Mijin

It’s more than that. I’m sure (though I can’t double-check right now) there is a 2-second or so shot of an engineer somewhere in the bowels of the ship doing some work on the generator and getting a big shock immediately prior to the lights going out.
I don’t know if in real life there really was an engineer still down there, but the point at which the lights went out was accurate, at least according to the documentaries I’ve seen.

PBS is currently showing Saving the Titanic–the story of the engineers who stayed at their posts so the lights would stay on & the lifeboats could be lowered. It’s an Irish/German production & quite affecting, if done on a moderate budget. You can watch the whole thing at the link. (The two cast pictures have their captions reversed.)

I’ve never seen Titanic, even on TV. But I might venture out to see it on a big screen, if only for the vision of that great tragedy. And just ignore the silly parts…

[standingwave]

@CALIBURN

for the ship (and ok kate’s nude scene) MAYBE.

but to have to sit through all the rest just to get to that stuff? HELL NO.

No for me as 3D gives me headaches but if it comes to Imax (we have one of the largest Imax screens due to a world’s fair many years ago) I calculate that Kate’s left breast would be about the size of a house (about 30’x50’) so it’s got that going for it.

[Katriona]

@Bridget_Burke

PBS is currently showing Saving the Titanic–the story of the engineers who stayed at their posts so the lights would stay on & the lifeboats could be lowered. It’s an Irish/German production & quite affecting, if done on a moderate budget. You can watch the whole thing at the link. (The two cast pictures have their captions reversed.)

I’ve never seen Titanic, even on TV. But I might venture out to see it on a big screen, if only for the vision of that great tragedy. And just ignore the silly parts…

This was on last night and posited an interesting theory about how the weather conditions created an optical illusion, which caused everyone to miss the iceberg.

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/site/sn/show.do?show=141474

[elbravoiv]

james cameron just dove to the bottom of the deepest poitn in the ocean with 3D cameras on one of the most historic scientific journeys in history … and they come out with titanic 3D? 'nuff said

[DKW]

It’d be visually impressive, to be sure, but I’d actually be concerned about the effect watching 3D graphics for the entire length of the movie would have on my eyes.

Well, that and I never had any interest in watching it again in the first place. Look, I’ll say it now: A love story could work. Maybe. But not a contrived love story like this, especially since it’s a formula that’s already been done to death. (My father, who’s seen maybe fifteen movies in his lifetime, immediately made the comparison to West Side Story. That’s not a good sign.) Plus I have no desire to see Billy Zane hamming it up again. Ever.

[Sampiro]

@elbravoiv

james cameron just dove to the bottom of the deepest poitn in the ocean with 3D cameras on one of the most historic scientific journeys in history … and they come out with titanic 3D? 'nuff said

From what I’ve read of that one, it was actually kind of boring. Yeah, you have the knowledge and satisfaction of knowing you have gone down further than any other submarine, but what little life is down there isn’t that interesting.

[JohnT]

I saw it last night and it looked wonderful. I can’t see the “3d effect” or whatever that makes my daughter duck her head, but the glasses at least render the screen clearly. There is so much background detail that you miss on the small screens, it alone made it worth the 3d price (the submersibles have cartoon logos on them, for one… completely forgot about that.)

And, my God, is Kate Winslet lovely or what? The shot where she gets out of the car to board Titanic is one of my favorite “reveal” shots ever. The actress should thank James Cameron repeatedly for what he’s done for her career.

In all, I had no problem paying $13.50 for a movie I can see on TNT because the big screen experience was worth it. Hell, I’d go see it again if it were (in totality) Sophie-ready.

[WhyNot]

Oh, I forgot about this thread! I did go to see it last weekend. It was wonderful. Here’s what I wrote about the next morning when a friend asked about the 3D:

It was very well done, I thought. The most obvious uses of 3D where when little bits of things were floating in the water, and that was fun. Strangely, rather than opening up the depth of field and making things look bigger, as 3D normally does, it actually foreshortened things and made rooms and decks seem smaller, which I thought was an interesting choice. I noticed it a lot in the first class dining room, giving the scenes a distinctly claustrophobic and cluttered feeling, very overwhelming in the opulence in a way the 2D tried to be but fell short. I liked how it created Rose’s building anxiety and feelings that her class and upbringing are overwhelming her identity. A fairly brilliant use of the technology in a way that doesn’t involve things whizzing at the audience.

And there was whole lots of it which didn’t seem particularly 3D at all, and I mean that in a good way. It was emphasized when it added to the film, and De-emphasized when it wouldn’t.

[Jack_Batty]

I’m really looking forward to it now. I’m seeing it with my daughter in IMAX 3d - on Sunday. She’s never seen it in any theater. I haven’t seen it in a theater since it was released.

[mhendo]

@JohnT

And, my God, is Kate Winslet lovely or what? The shot where she gets out of the car to board Titanic is one of my favorite “reveal” shots ever. The actress should thank James Cameron repeatedly for what he’s done for her career.

Emphasis mine.

Give me a fucking break!

Kate Winslet’s acting ability is what has made her career. She’s been nominated for 6 Academy Awards (1 win), and her first nomination came a full two years before Titanic.

Not only that, but her career since has been one in which she has frequently turned down mainstream, high-profile films for smaller, more interesting work. Historical “what if” questions are always hard to answer, but i don’t think that Winslet’s subsequent film oeuvre would have been that different without Titanic, and it certainly wasn’t James Cameron’s directing that made her career.

[Bridget_Burke]

My answer was a tentative yes. Then I read I Re-Watched Titanic So You Don’t Have To; You’re Welcome. (Possibly NSFW because of the large caption: “Die, Motherfuckers”)

I feel like James Cameron has never met an actual person before. Titanic is basically a 3.5-hour-long Zales commercial, only slightly less emotionally compelling… I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to watch this movie—much less watch it in 3D. Hey, do you want to watch a 3.5-hour extravaganza of terror and death with a plastic cage strapped to your face? Hey, did you like the original Titanic, but wish you could also have a headache? Hey, are you a 15-year-old girl? Oh, you are? Okay. Go nuts. If you’ll excuse me, I have to go die of old age now.

Maybe I’ll see The Cabin in the Woods, instead…

[Ludovic]

A fairly brilliant use of the technology in a way that doesn’t involve things whizzing at the audience.

For things whizzing at the audience, you’d need to see John Carter 3-D

[BigT]

@Colophon

Do 3D films actually look that different to normal films? The glasses never work for me, but I’m struggling to see how they could look much different. Watching a film on a screen doesn’t look “flat”.

Does the world look noticeably different to when you look at it with one eye than with two? Because, if so, that’s what people mean by flat.

If not, then you don’t have stereoscopic vision. And I don’t think there’s any way to describe the difference to people who don’t have it.

BTW: I must have watched this on TV, because I don’t remember any boobs.

[JohnT]

Kate Winslet live (durng the drawing scene), a number of drawn boobs.