• Titanic being re-released this 2012 in 3D
    67 replies, posted
I like Titanic but I don't think there's anything in it that I'd pay $10 to see in 3D
[QUOTE=The_Marine;21259342]Oh yeah, completely forgot about that one.[/QUOTE] Zing pls
in 2012? what
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;21258590]It's gonna suck because going from 2D to 3D ends bad[/QUOTE] Just like Clash of the Titans, if I took my 3D glasses off I could barely notice the difference.
James Cameron makes good movies, so who knows how this can end up.
[QUOTE=The_Marine;21258993]There were no sex scenes in Titanic. Also, this is a fucking stupid idea and the only motivation he has for doing this is to make a quick buck and this smells an awful lot like what George Lucas did with the "special edition" re-release of Star Wars.[/QUOTE] Makes me thinking why Lucas hasn't released a "lOLspecial Version of STAR WARS in 3D" yet.
Won't see this I didn't like the original tbh
Original was awful IMO ><
I cried watching this film. I'll probably end up seeing it in 3D though, not seen it in a while.
I'm pretty sure you can make anything in 2D look 3D by giving up a bit of the image on the sides.
Interested to see how this turns out.
[QUOTE=rosthouse;21263991]Makes me thinking why Lucas hasn't released a "lOLspecial Version of STAR WARS in 3D" yet.[/QUOTE] Because all the ships where models... Now if they where computer animated... Maybe
[QUOTE=SkynrdFan1;21260021]I disagree. Avatar was simply amazing in 3D.[/QUOTE] IMAX? The 3D I saw it in gave it a bit more depth, but it wasn't amazing.
[QUOTE=darcy010;21261727]I think the 3D was so good in Avatar because they used 4 cameras instead of 2. I think I read about it somewhere. [editline]05:03PM[/editline] Maybe they are going to zoom in the camera a tiny bit. then make a double of the image and put them just next to each other onion skinned. Would this accomplish the 3D effect?[/QUOTE] You have no idea how 3D works, do you? For a 3D effect you need 2 (not 4, except if you have 4 eyes of course) images. One for the right eye and one for the left eye. The left image's camera has to be moved to the left about the same distance your eyes are apart. That way your brain thinks the movie is 3D because one both eyes see the same scene but from a slightly different angle. The reason Avatar's 3D was new is because he used a special camera (with two lenses of course) that could turn it's lenses like we can turn our eyes and can move the lenses closer together for looking at close objects.
[QUOTE=Best4bond;21265040]Because all the ships where models... Now if they where computer animated... Maybe[/QUOTE] It's not like DiCaprio is a computer model either... Or is he? I think I'm onto something :tinfoil:
[QUOTE=SkynrdFan1;21258629]How would they accomplish this? Don't 3D movies have to be shot with multiple cameras at once?[/QUOTE] Converting a 2D movie into a 3D one involves artists tracing the depth of individual objects then using some CG magic to generate the two images. This creates the pretty bad 3D effect seen in most movies. [QUOTE=B1N4RY!;21258975]All movies were shot with more than one camera at multiple angles, but only one angle is used[/QUOTE] No.
[QUOTE=Frisk;21258982]Maybe as the boat is sinking, they can flood the theater to give the patrons the full experience.[/QUOTE] No need! The waters of the oceans will do it for us! (Joke: [sp]Of course I'm talking about the ginormous waves that rape every fucking thing in their path[/sp])
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8586973.stm[/url] He's such a hypocrite.
I don't feed the money cow known as James Cameron.
Hell yea! Great movie! And now its in 3D 3 FUCKING D
Why Titanic i want so see something like terminator 2 or lord of the rings.
[QUOTE=Technopath;21264993]I'm pretty sure you can make anything in 2D look 3D by giving up a bit of the image on the sides.[/QUOTE] I was just sitting with my legs crossed,with my left hand on my cheek, wtf. [editline]02:56PM[/editline] Apparently, a lot of people sit like that while browsing. First time I've seen that.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;21267445][url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8586973.stm[/url] He's such a hypocrite.[/QUOTE] No, you're just a moron. [quote]The film-maker has revealed he is planning to convert his 1997 blockbuster Titanic into a 3D release, but said it will be different because he plans to take his time instead of doing a "slapdash conversion".[/quote] he's slamming the companies that improvise the 3d and turn it shitty, like clash of the titans.
[QUOTE=rosthouse;21263991]Makes me thinking why Lucas hasn't released a "lOLspecial Version of STAR WARS in 3D" yet.[/QUOTE] He's actually going to, announced it a few years ago.
[QUOTE=The Vman;21258665]That's exactly what I was thinking. It also seems just a little [I]too [/I]money-grubbing-bastardish for Cameron to re-release his second highest grossing movie of all time.[/QUOTE] Dude It's James Cameron we're talking about here
Yeah, but one thing is Real, double-camera 3D and the crappy computer generated 3D thingies they will use in this movie. If you saw Spy Kids 3 in 3D, you'll know what i mean. Also quote [QUOTE]It was like watching Titanic all over again, after two and a half hours you're all like "God dammit, just sink already!"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=latin_geek;21275535]If you saw Spy Kids 3 in 3D, you'll know what i mean.[/QUOTE] The 3-D didn't even work for me when I saw it, was more of a headache.
James Cameron should quit making moves and retire
[QUOTE=Dr Pepper;21275654]James Cameron should quit making moves and retire[/QUOTE] But the movies are actually good! We're talking about grabbing an old movie, putting shitty 3D on it, then selling it AGAIN to get more money.
Aliens in 3D anyone?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.