I doubt he will, but I know he loved it back in 1997 and I was curious if he'd do a revisit with the movie coming out in 3D.

I do not know if James will but I did
http://youtu.be/92wlKO88X0M
Happy to discuss it here too
Cheers

I'm surprised anyone would want to waste their money seeing this film in 3-D, putting on 3-D glasses isn't exactly what comes to most people mind's for a date night film such as this one.

At least the one that you really want to watch in 3D is Kate Winslet
Now half serious, there are few scenes which are enhanced visually in spectacular fashion and others that you do not need the glasses very much so there when private romance could kick in lol

I hope he does. This may be a good opportunity for him to re-evaluate the potential of 3D done completely in post and to re-evaluate a movie that quickly became very exciting for people to hate. Beyond this, and since his reviews are frequently autobiographical, he may offer some insight into what he feels about 1997's James Berardinelli. Of course, a review of John Carter could just as easily offer the same kind of content.

I liked Titanic, never joining the lynch mob that decried the movie as one of the worst things to ever grace the screen. The prospect of seeing a great big churning melodrama in 3D is kind of funny to me.

Hm. It's always irritating to have one's legitimate grievances marginalized as not liking something because it's cool to hate stuff. It seems especially common with Titanic, though. Why is it so hard to believe that some people just don't like this movie very much?

Why presume it's so difficult a thing for me to believe? I have no wish to marginalize other opinions, legitimate or otherwise. On the other hand, I now see how my post could be considered offensive. To this, I pull out the old card that reads "I didn't irritate you, you let yourself be irritated."

The truth is, I'm not really much of a forum guy. I make a far better lurker than a participant.

Oh, stop absolving yourself, you self-absolver you.

Here's Karl Malone's whole thing: a forum is a place of conversation. The only thing that poisoning the well accomplishes (e.g. with statements along the lines of "people who profess to dislike this thing are just going with the crowd") is to stifle the conversation, rather than engage it.

I don't hate it because it's the "cool" thing to do, I just plain hate it, and I saw it long before the backlash started, I'm just getting sick of getting studios trying to force 3-D on the masses when it's obvious they're not biting, converting older films to 3-D seems like a last ditch effort to try and get people to accept 3-D and the surcharge that comes with it.

I retract my "cool thing to do" implication. I was probably trying to win acceptance.

My thinking was that Titanic could offer up a way to make 3D done in post not only passable but exceptional. I'm working with a lot of flimsy assumptions such as: 3D is a legitimate presentation of film. I don't know if it is as I've, ha ha, never seen a 3D movie. I'm forcing the cup to be half full here. I don't know why I'm doing that. Probably trying to win acceptance.

I'm going to move on, make an effort to think before I type.

This is fair. I was poisoning the well. It was automatic. I'm trying to get better about this. Practice is needed. Same goes with my self-pitying thing.

I think that this movie is a pretty good example in how a conversion to a 3D movie can be done properly. Titanic did not have anything done gimmicky , it was immerse, enhancing the viewing experience with depth. The colours were still bright and the romantic scenes warm and inviting -- until all hell breaks loose (If you suffer of vertigo may not like this bit lol) .John Carter in the other hand is the wrong example for 3D conversions . In my view If you are a film director who knows how to shoot a 3D film (Cameron or Scorsese for example) then they very likely will pick an old film which fit adequately for this and will make a cool conversion. Now, If you are a film director who has not idea how to shoot in 3D and make a film in 2D (or pick an old one) to be converted post-production only because the studios want to add the surcharge then result can be murky and very disappointed like John Carter.

weren't you like 6 when it came out? so I guess the 'backlash' started when you were 7.

god I feel old.

It is possible for children to develop good taste in films at a young age.

Actually I saw the film sometime around 2002, I don't believe the backlash started until like the mid 2000s. In general i'm not a huge fan of 3 hour plus films, as I just don't have that kind of patience.

Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time Vexy? The Titanic backlash has been going on since 1998...I know that cause everybody was hating on it back then at school...everyone.

Don't you get tired of being a smartass Packy? Most people I knew at the time LOVED that damn film, I was pretty much the only person in my neighborhood that didn't like it, so i'm not "wrong"

Very easy: great looking movie, but way too much emphasis on a fictional star crossed lover story. Turned out to be the key of success, but not necessarily the key to quality.

Example: if I play "Inca Roads" or "Montana" by Frank Zappa, most people will dismiss it as incomprehensible, confusing, ugly music -except for many a fellow musician. I'd label it: great music - too good for the average tin ear listener. Zappa even mocked himself in everything he did, so "self important schmuck" doesn't apply. "Genuis" does.

I can take this discussion further. And I do so aggressively if people insist on confusing success with quality. My stock answer to: "Cameron (or any pompous hack - Cameron started out promising but turned into a pompous hack - for that matter) makes a lot of money - that justifies everything." is: "Nope: guns, prostitutes and drugs sell BIG time. Much more than Cameron can ever dream of. Get my point?

Happy Easter everyone!

You think Cameron is a pompous hack? I can see pompous...but hack? I reserve using hack for people like Uwe Boll. It is laughable that someone would consider James Cameron a hack. Do you think Tiger Woods is a hack golfer, or Peyton Manning a hack quarterback, or Michael Jordan a hack basketball player, or MIchael Schumacher a hack race car driver? How in your eyes is he a hack? And I would venture to say he doesn't direct for a paycheck... isn't he a billionaire now?

Cameron became a pompous hack. He was excellent when he started. No doubt about that. Titanic is such a missed opportunity. I don't need a huge budget documentary, but everything about the movie is so heavy handed. When I saw it back in 1998, I really was like: "No, no please, not a melodramatic love story complete with chick flick type celebrity gossip!!!" But that's what it was. The dialog and directing are really cheezy, and everything looks like a childrens book version of 1912. Cameron out-spielberged Spielberg in the melodrama department with Titanic and Avatar. I have a strong feeling that Spielberg would have made a much better "Titanic" - and he proved many times that Cameron, as good as he is technically, has nothing on him even in this department. There is no point arguing who is the special FX/tech "pioneer" of both.

Uwe Boll is beyond "hackdome" - a new word has yet to be invented to describe his, well, stuff.