Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

Who has seen Titanic in 3D?

I actually saw it yesterday. I've saw it on April 4th, 2012 the release night of it. It was extraordinary. It was of course, sad. But, it was great.

I personally like the original than 3D. 3D was cool and all.

Do you need a moderator or administrator? Try the Contact the Staff Section!
Do you need private advice? Try the Private Advice Section!
Do you need to know who is a staff member? Try the Staff List!
For account questions regarding infractions/bans try Contact the Staff!
Have a question? Send me a message.
Want to talk? Send an IM or VM.
Staff member: August 12th, 2011-November 5th, 2011
Returned for David-

How I wish I could see it, but they haven't put it up yet where I live. I would definitely love to see it with all the amazing visual effects. Anyway, 3D or not, Titanic will always be epic (':
Now I'll have to listen to the Celine Dion song, god I love it so much <3

My sister promised to take me then never did. But I do wanna go see it ):

Ad wants to go but I really aren't fussed.

I don't like 3d films.
Plus it's exactly the same as the old one, i just don't really see the point.

Dont like 3D films????? ^^^^ Why??? besides being more expensive, they rock imo. Well now they do, they have come a LONG way in the past 3 years or so since Avatar!!!!!

I will see it when I have time, have money, and have seen other movies I havent seen yet. I saw the trailer for it and the 3D looked wayyyyyyy impressive!!!!

If anybody hasnt seen it in 2D yet, definitely see it, and I think people should see it even if you did see it in 2D.

I thought the 3D looked bad. Not through any fault of the conversion team. It's just the film itself is not conducive to 3D with the current technology. There were a lot of shadows and dark scenes in the movie. Those bland colors don't jump off the screen and add to motion blur when someone moves. When you have a movie that is full of those, as titanic did, the film won't look very good in 3D. Furthermore, It actually negates the shadow play that makes the movie so visually impressive in the first place. The cinematography combined with the use of the shadows is brilliant and, unfortunately, the attempt at a 3D conversion cast the shadow back a few layers and they weren't as impressive as before. I think that it changed the whole mis en scene to a worse version than the 2D version offered the viewer. I would say that it's not even worth the money to go see it in 3D.

My problem with 3D is that the technology is not near good enough to use effectively in any film. Until they can support dark and dull colors fully, It won't be visually impressive enough to employ it. Going back to Bazin, Cinema hasn't arrived yet. I suspect that someday 3D will be impressive enough that 2D films will be phased out. But there's no use in rushing it. 3D has a strength is making an it an all immersive art. The problem is that the technology doesn't support an all immersive experience because of the difficulty it has translating filmmaking techniques and the non-innovation of montage theory over the years. In the end, it's just retarding the growth of the art form if directors keep pushing 3D products with technology that's not good enough. Let it develop in the experimental sector and when it's good enough adopt it as a valid way of making a film. Just as I am against sound if it does not allow the liberation of the Camera, I am against 3D until the technology improves enough to support any style that's already become common place in the industry.

I didn't really see the point in paying a lot of money to see a movie that I already own so I opted to not see it. But all my friends really liked it. They were all hyped up about it.

Good points @Ephemeral but have you seen hugo and avatar??? You seriously dont think the technology was good in them? I liked what I saw in the titanic 3D trailer but maybe they just took the best scenes idk

@Cougar88

I have. Avatar doesn't play with shadows and dark colors. Same thing with Hugo. The technology isn't good enough to support all of the broad types of filmmaking yet. If you tried to make a Neo-noir/Film noir in 3d it would fail miserably. Avatar and Hugo still had motion blur as well. Avatar had quite a bit of it. That needs to be worked on. I know that Cameron wanted to increase the framerate. But if you do that, then you have to rectify the action in such a way that the frame rate doesn't seem ridiculous. I doubt that will work. We'll have to wait for Avatar 2 to see though. Hugo highlights the techniques that do work. As a supplemental tool. Unfortunately, it's indicative of technology that's not ready. The same thing with sound when The Jazz Singer came out. It was largely a silent film because the technology wasn't good enough to liberate the camera as the mass majority of movies made the switch over. As a result, there were very very few adequate films made in the few years to come. We don't want to make the same mistake again.

On a side note, didn't we see something like this before in regards to 3D? It was used as largely the next big thing around the invention of the Television and the technology was quite impressive by those standards. Perhaps by today's standards, as well (It's incredibly hard to find films like Dial M for Murder in their pure 3D form). We're seeing the same thing now, I think. We see 3D having a hard time catching on. Independent theaters refusing to carry 3D equipment. We see the arthouse shying away from the technology. Auteurs yelling wait to the mainstream. Studios going back on their promise to make all movies in 3D by 2012. Unfortunately for 3D tech companies, those things are going to have to change if they are going to make 3D the next big innovation. I find that the history of cinema is quite cyclic, for the most part.