mildconcern.com

Something odd happened to me as I watched the trailer for Titanic‘s 3D re-release: I got a bit nostalgic for a James Cameron film. The sweeping camera, the intense emotion, the inevitable sinking feeling, and a time when seeing Kate Winslet naked was a treat rather than an inevitability, all rushed back to me, 12 years after I first saw the film. Have I got James Cameron wrong? Was I too harsh when I declared him a prick?

No.

This is a 3D re-release after all, making it more expensive, more difficult to watch and therefore plain unnecessary. In essence, modern-day prickish James Cameron has taken the good work of pre-prick Cameron and retroactively pricked it up… if that makes sense. It’s as if he looked at his back catalogue, saw something of genuine quality and couldn’t help but ruin it. It’s enough to make me shake my fist in the air and shout out in a growl, “CAMERON!”, but I haven’t done that since the last general election (political!)

The trailer is below, and is a bizarre case of a 2D trailer for the re-release of an old film made into in 3D, therefore unable to showcase any of the new draw. There are also some fresh new stills, some including a pre-prick Cameron, which are also from a film over 10 years old. To repeat a joke, you can get 280,000+ more stills by buying Titanic on DVD.

In summary: I do quite like Titanic, just not in 3D please.

Related posts:

With growing complaints about the weak 3D conversion of Clash of the Titans I’m getting worried about the number of films new and old about to undergo the treatment.

Alice underwent the conversion to 3D rather than being filmed in the format and reactions were underwhelming, personally I forwent the 3D to reduce cost and discomfort. Den of Geek has collected some reviews of Titan’s 3D and they are all bad and they went so far as to say that the 3D made the film worse as “the difference was negligible and the rest of the film just looked darker and foggier as a result of the tint in the glasses.”

With 3D bringing big bucks at the box office studios are keen to convert old 2D films to 3D to milk that cash cow for all it’s worth. MTV has a list of potential contenders including Titanic, Star Wars, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, all of which will somehow be made into “glorious” 3D. The problem is that unless you film in 3D the effect is going to be pretty limited, probably just making some objects appear in front of others.

Of course you can always protest by seeing these films in 2D instead, that is if they are available to you. Today Cineworld tweeted me to say, “We’ll try to offer a 2D alternative if the site’s big enough to accommodate showing 2 versions of the same film.” Despite this my local cinema is only offering the 3D Clash of the Titans when I watched Alice there in 2D just a few weeks ago.

Done properly 3D can be a real draw for audience but when you stick 3D on the end of every title and don’t do the job properly people are going to catch on and spend their money elsewhere.

Related posts:

James Cameron has said that not only is he hoping to re-release an extended Avatar back into cinemas this Autumn but that Titanic is undergoing the 3D conversion for a 2012 re-release. Do the two highest grossing movies of all time need to be back in cinemas? Shouldn’t Avatar let the autumn releases have a chance at making some money instead? Is there any real benefit to somehow making 2D movies 3D?

Grrr argh etc…

Related posts:

Avatar has finally done as predicted and knocked Titanic off the top spot for highest grossing film of all time. Cameron has beaten his own record and will probably be smug forever more. For me this feels like a hollow victory of style over substance, one that tells the studios that fancy effects and endless marketing makes for a guaranteed success. Which perhaps it does. Read more »

Related posts: