Click here for the review of Beauty and the Beast

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

Glad to hear that the 3D conversion wasn't botched, but still--I agree that unless the 3D really adds something (Avatar, Hugo) it's simply not worth the surcharge.

There was a 3D trailer for this and Titanic before our screening of Hugo. Those trailers probably weren't great ideas, because in direct contrast to Hugo it was clear how little the 3D adds to either Titanic or Beauty and the Beast.

Luckily, there is one showtime at our local theater of Beauty and the Beast in 2D. My guess is that it will be entirely possible to find elsewhere it in 2D--in which case it's so great to have it back in theaters.

I don't know, "Titanic"'s 3D conversion looks very impressive.

But James, you're wrong on the 2D versions not being available. Our theater chain has one 2D show as the first one, then the rest of the shows are in 3D. It was the same thing with "The Lion King" re-release.

It all depends on the theater chain and whether Disney demands that there be one 2D show or none at all.

I just checked my local theaters showtimes for tomorrow and there is three 2D screenings and five 3D screenings. Guess which one I'll be seeing. 21 years later, Beauty and the Beast is still my favorite animated film.

I thought the 3D preview of Titanic looked impressive as well.

3D animation is underwhelming to me. Animation is supposed to look flat? I didn't see The Lion King 3D and I won't be seeing this.

*EDIT* My local theater also has a 2D screen.

I don't want to get into another heated discussion about the merits of 3D (especially after I got told off in another thread by a poster who is really adamantly anti-3D), but I'm glad to hear that it doesn't substantially ruin the picture quality.

A question for James - given that there will be many 3D re-releases in the future, will you be re-assessing your rating of the film? i.e. can a file score better or worse based on the results of the 3D conversion?

All time favourite Disney movie here, that I won't be seeing in 3D. Watching it on BRD at home looks infinitely better.

I'll see it if there's a 2D screening available. Not to pummel a deceased equine mammal, but I'm not a big fan of revising old films with new technologies. Part of what made this one such a gem was what the artists were able to do with the tools that were available to them in the time that it was made. An early '90s movie is, in part, a journalistic record of early '90s filmmaking.

I think the future of 3D re-releases will hinge heavily on Titanic coming out April 6 (and probably Episode I coming out next month). I've seen the re-release trailer in 3D two times, and I can't stop raving about how good the conversion is. Most of the trailer looks like natively-shot 3D with incredible depth... James, you might have to re-assess your opinion on post-conversion if the entire movie looks this good.

If the Titanic 3D re-release makes over $100M domestic and perhaps $500M worldwide -- studios are going to fall over themselves converting catalogue films into 3D. I don't mind re-releases, since honestly, no plasma TV and superb home theater system can replicate the sensation of seeing a great movie in the theater.

Yes the studios will literally be 'flocking' towards the 'pen' of 3D conversionism maybe they won't do too baaaaad a job either!

Or we could just hope that 3D goes the way of the doomed transatlantic vessel where it belongs so that people will finally forget about it and go back to just trying to make good movies.

Also if people are dumb enough to think that because Titanic in 3D makes money, it means any other movie in 3D will also make money probably deserve to lose said money when they fail completely.

Oh man, this whole thing is just a huge farce. Perhaps it would be appropriate to have the Benny Hill theme tune playing in the background whenever 1) people defend and explain 3D, 2) during the conversion process, 3) during the whole damn movie. It's about the same level of creative and artistic credibility.

I'm very anti-conversion. I was honestly expecting the Titanic re-release to look like a 2D movie with the characters rotoscoped as cardboard cutouts, but I was shocked. Honestly, if a conversion can look this good -- then studios should stop half-assing their conversions. (Plus, both Cameron and Paramount say the movie will be shown in 2D as well.)

And considering that people flocked out to The Lion King re-release is a testament to its popularity. 3D illusion or not, Disney is taking advantage of it and hoping the families flock to see Belle, Ariel, Mike, Sully and Nemo on the big screen again. Do the math: If The Lion King made $94M with it's re-release, and its original release garnered $312M. Titanic is the second-biggest movie of all time (not counting inflation) with $600M, so I would be shocked if it didn't make as much as TLK's re-release, if not a lot more.

That's pretty much how they looked in Avatar!

You're right about the money but if you consider how you cannot polish a turd, converting anything to 3D in the hope that it will sell is a dumb idea.

I only hope that people learned from being conned by Avatar, and that Titanic will bomb with it's re-release. Then I remembered, people are stupid like that, since they also went to see the re-release of Avatar.

If you don't like Titanic or Avatar, fine. I didn't think Avatar was all it was cracked up to be, aside from the stunning visuals.

Are you against re-releases in general or of movies you don't like? Putting aside the obvious reason of "studios want more money!", re-releases are a good idea. Studios have been doing that before and after home video was invented.

There's a chance that this could backfire and the studios will realize that the big bucks aren't in 3D conversion, but in large-scale, heavily promoted re-releases of older popular films.

I can dream, right?

Bolded was what I was thinking. I took my kids to watch The Lion King when it was re-released in theatres, not to watch it in 3D, but to have the opportunity to watch it on the huge screen. THAT was the draw for me. Hell, Ken, how many older popular movies did you get to watch on the big screen last year? I'm sure there's a market for it. Maybe it's not that big...

But I can dream, right?

One of my favorite filmgoing experiences last year was when AMC briefly ran Taxi Driver. Seeing it on the big screen was a real treat. I'd love to see more rereleases of classic films, especially since I don't have anyplace near me that does anything like what Ken gets the opportunity to experience.

Finding Nemo is getting a rerelease in 3d later this year, presumably to line up with the Bluray release. I never got the chance to see that one in theaters; I imagine, regardless of whether I see it in 2d or 3d, the film will be well worth the price of admission.

Titanic wasn't a bad movie. There is a new TV adaptation to be shown soon in the UK which will warrant a re-watch to make comparisons.

Let me put it this way: How many movies are there that you would pay to go and see on the big screen when for less than the cost of a cinema trip, you can buy it on DVD or even BRD? Personally, there aren't many. This isn't because I don't like the big screen experience, but rather due to how the experience has deteriorated in recent years.
A decade ago, when I first saw Fellowship Of The Ring, cinema going was something I did at least once a fortnight, if not weekly. I saw FOTR four times in the cinema within the space of a month and this was on what little pay I got from my one shift a week college job.
The recent trend in re-releases has offered some tempting experiences (Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, Ghost busters) but my reasons for missing these were due to one off showings that I couldn't attend. I don't really want to see Titanic on the big screen because I'm not sure it needs it. Maybe if LOTR was re-released, I'd be far more tempted. Since those movies were the best cinematic experience I've had to date, it'd be more than worth repeating.

I have never seen Titanic on the big screen before. I was a bit too young to attend back in 1998, but I saw it on VHS and love it. It's a film I will gladly pay to see on the big screen. You're right, too many theatrical experiences have deteriorated badly (people texting, kids running amok, people talking during the movie) and the theater-to-DVD windows are small enough for people to wait. But if you want a better theatrical experience, go during the week and the first show if possible (or the last show if business at the theater is really sluggish). Going on opening weekend or during the peak seasons (Christmas, Thanksgiving, May-August) is just asking for a subpar experience.

Also, I work at a theater so all the movies that play here I see for free anyway. But I do pay sometimes to see a midnight showing or for a movie I want to support (like Hugo). Midnight showings are mostly good, being that 90% of the people are on their best behavior and it's preferable to a Friday or Saturday night show. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 was a sublime midnight show -- no one brought their kids, or texted or did anything obnoxious in general. All they did was cheer and clap at the right spots.

If Avatar is re-released, I would go watch it in 3D again. Yes, I'm dumb and stupid like that

Anyway, when I first heard about Titanic in 3D, my instant reaction was one of misgivings, after once being forced into a hack job post-conversion 3d movie. Then I saw that it's Cameron and they took some time to do the post conversion. And then I saw the trailer and I was sold.

Can't say the same about Star Wars I, however. (That said, I enjoyed it, a *** movie for me) Seeing the change George Lucas continued and continued to do the originals, I don't have high hopes for it. He couldn't even care to make the re-release trailer look like a real trailer. (The Lion King, Titanic)