Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sun Nov 23, 2014 10:46 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC" 
Author Message
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1485
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
Quote:
I think you hit the nail on the head when you refer to the sizeable adult audience for ‘Titanic’. I believe that ‘Titanic’ was able to attract a lot of people who would normally not go to the cinema not least because of its classical, old-fashioned style and certainly because of its topic, which was prominent in the media in the mid 90ies due to the Titanic exhibition.

I maintain that multiple viewings, presumably by girls and women, were the main reason for ‘Titanic’s phenomenal success. This is anecdotal again, but I have met a number of girls who have seen the movie between five and twelve times in the cinema. I’ve not met any male person, who did so.


I think the first paragraph sort of overrides the 2nd. I maintain that the sizable mass appeal to all ages is the main reason Titanic made 1.8 billion worldwide(I think its sort of a stretch to say numbers like that were mainly reached because teenage girls went to see to see it multiple times - teenage boys & girls are a really small % of the world. They can drive Twilight & Transformers only so far, to get beyond that you need everyone going.
and Avatar made 2.7 billion, with eerily similar staying power to Titanic, were teenagers seeing it many times also the main reason it made that kind of dough?

all of the truly big movies throughout history had a lot of repeat viewers. I'm old enough to remember ET & Raiders playing for like forever. No way to measure repeat viewers I think, but I would imagine the amount of teenage boys that saw Star Wars multiple times in '77 pretty much dwarfes the amount of repeat viewers Titanic had. Weird that no one ever brings up 'repeat viewers' when talking about its or Raiders' success, but so often Titanic's success is just chalked up to 'teenage girls.'

Quote:
Also, I am not convinced that students and professors of film schools constitute a representative sample of the population, particularly when it comes to interest in specific films. I would fully expect someone with an enhanced interest in movies - such as a student of film - to get excited about the new Lars von Trier or Michael Haneke movie, but I doubt that these names alone will attract big crowds of “regular” cinemagoers.


You'd be surprised how limited the film interests are of a lot of film students then & now. so many could care less about anything pre Scorsese or even pre Tarantino. I know some working screenwriters personally who have never seen (or ever had an interest in seeing it seems) any New Wave film. Or anything by Howard Hawks. or John Ford. But they sure do love John Hughes.

Quote:
That still doesn’t mean that ‘Titanic’ is a good movie, it just means that it is a popular one, and it certainly doesn’t mean that I have to like it.


No problem with anyone who doesn't like it, but I have to wonder about those that think its a truly bad film(like the thousands that voted it a 1 on imdb apparently do. Same thing is happening to Avatar, it just dropped out of the top 250, which seems hard to believe.
I think those films are held to higher degree of scrutiny than a lot of other blockbusters, mainly because pretty much everyone has seen them(more viewers than any other 2 films of the last 20 years) + the near universal critical acclaim + the recognition of the Oscars. I think that sort of rubs some people the wrong way.
BTW I didn't like Avatar, but acknowledge I'm clearly in the minority on that. And am in awe of its success & critical acclaim, its rare to have both.

Quote:
Oh, and I haven’t seen the German 1943 movie ‘Titanic’, but I have recently watched a documentary on Titanic-related movies, according to which the famous 1950ies Titanic movie ‘A Night to Remember’ used a number of scenes from ‘Titanic’ (1943).


Its on youtube, you should check it out. Cameron clearly saw it (& A Night to Remember, some scenes are repeated almost verbatim in Titanic. The naysayers like to mock Cameron's film for not being historically accurate, which is sort of odd to me since he includes so much from the definitive & most accurate Titanic film)

did you know Goebbels had Titanic's director executed during filming?


Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:41 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3184
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
Unke wrote:
I’m still not convinced that ‘Titanic’ is a teen-boy oriented movie. Actually, I don’t think that it is a teen-oriented movie at all. Of course, Leonardo DiCaprio was a teen heartthrob, but that would only affect its marketability towards teenage girls and, to a lesser extent, adult women. I doubt that Kate Winslet had a similar appeal to teenage boys.


The reason this was viewed as a "teen boy" movie is because, prior to TITANIC, Cameron was the king of teen boy summer movies: TERMINATOR, T2, ALIENS, TRUE LIES. His only (partial) failure with that demographic was THE ABYSS. TITANIC had a huge "want to see" factor among teen boys. Did they love it and return to see it multiple times? Probably not. But a very large component of the early audience (first few weeks) was male. Then the women started taking over.


Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:11 pm
Profile WWW
Gaffer

Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:17 am
Posts: 36
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
I can't remember where I saw it but some article was claiming that Titanic gave rise to the 'hater culture' that causes people to have an irrational hatred of a movie. Not sure I agree with that (Titanic being the first) but it's hard to argue that Titanic does have some serious haters that it doesn't really deserve.

Personally I saw it over Christmas break in 1997 (when I was 19) with my whole family, and we all liked it (even Dad).

_________________
--If I have to hear "Ya Mo B There" one more time, I'm going to ya mo burn this place to the ground.--


Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:46 am
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:45 am
Posts: 15
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
This was one of those movies which could have wide appeal. Teen boys might have found the first half boring, but it was also ultimately a disaster movie and the second half had a lot of elements of an action movie.

I also know some guys who watched it because they were interested to seeing what the ship was like.

I've only ever watched this movie once, when it first came out, so I'm glad to read an assessment of the 3D. I usually avoid 3D movies like the plague (glasses give me a headache and I hate the objects-fly-at-you gimmick), so I have been trying to decide whether to watch it with or without for this one.


Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:55 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 812
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
blakejared wrote:
This was one of those movies which could have wide appeal. Teen boys might have found the first half boring, but it was also ultimately a disaster movie and the second half had a lot of elements of an action movie.

I also know some guys who watched it because they were interested to seeing what the ship was like.

I've only ever watched this movie once, when it first came out, so I'm glad to read an assessment of the 3D. I usually avoid 3D movies like the plague (glasses give me a headache and I hate the objects-fly-at-you gimmick), so I have been trying to decide whether to watch it with or without for this one.


Cameron is famous for his not gimmicky but "Immerse" 3D filming technique, he is not going to send you objects just for the sake of it. The depth dimension really enhanced the visual experience during the disaster bit. Some scenes may give you vertigo thou lol. At the beginning , with close up while boy meets girl scenes, the intention with the depth dimension was to "simulate" to place you in the room

I highly recommend it to watch in 3D but be aware that the movie still last over 3 hours as Cameron did not cut any scene and just changed the star map for a real one in some night one

The day will come when we will not need special glasses to watch 3d in the Cinema but until then ..

.. I just read that Cameron thinks that it might take quite some time lol :

Quote:
In a movie theatre, it's anywhere from 10 years to never, because you're talking about hundreds of separate viewing angles. There really is no technology right now that can deal with that, that I've seen - James Cameron


http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-china-jamescameronbre83l047-20120422,0,1877397.story

and there is when I wish Cameron might be wrong but he knows very well the 3D technology , for sure more than I do HaHa

Cheers

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:17 pm
Profile WWW
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3184
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
MinnJD wrote:
I can't remember where I saw it but some article was claiming that Titanic gave rise to the 'hater culture' that causes people to have an irrational hatred of a movie. Not sure I agree with that (Titanic being the first) but it's hard to argue that Titanic does have some serious haters that it doesn't really deserve.


Whoever wrote that article doesn't have a very good memory or wasn't around in the early '80s. There was an enormous backlash against ET which, for many years, would be the box-office champ (can't recall whether it was still the all-time #1 when TITANIC came knocking or whether something else snuck in there). The initial reaction to ET was fawning but a strong undercurrent of hatred began to build. The difference between ET and TITANIC is that there effectively was not Internet in 1982 while there was one in 1997. But the overall arc of public reaction was similar - you just had to pay attention to different signs in '82.


Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:15 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
unwindfilms wrote:
The day will come when we will not need special glasses to watch 3d in the Cinema but until then ..

.. I just read that Cameron thinks that it might take quite some time lol :

Quote:
In a movie theatre, it's anywhere from 10 years to never, because you're talking about hundreds of separate viewing angles. There really is no technology right now that can deal with that, that I've seen - James Cameron


(this isn't a personal attack so don't take it as such, please?)

Why do we even want this day to come? So instead of watching shit movies on a big flat screen, we can watch shit movies in irritating... whatever they will name this new gimmick?

Why do I get the feeling Cameron is sort of missing the point of his own medium? And if not, then he's certainly letting it gradually pass him by. If he genuinely thinks that 3D is the dangling string that will keep us entertained while he makes moar bucks from his shameless charlatanism then he really doesn't think as much of his 'fans' as people have been pointing out.

Just take a look to one side at photography. Since digital cameras became affordable (not good, just affordable) now everyone is a budding photographer... just without the creativity or even the slightest grasp of what the medium is for. This leads me to what I firmly believe is the attitude of 3D pushers today:

"Don't think about it, sheep, just pay us and watch this!! It's 3Deeee!! That makes it better by default!!"


Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:13 am
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Unke wrote:
I’m still not convinced that ‘Titanic’ is a teen-boy oriented movie. Actually, I don’t think that it is a teen-oriented movie at all. ...


The reason this was viewed as a "teen boy" movie is because, prior to TITANIC, Cameron was the king of teen boy summer movies: TERMINATOR, T2, ALIENS, TRUE LIES. His only (partial) failure with that demographic was THE ABYSS. TITANIC had a huge "want to see" factor among teen boys. Did they love it and return to see it multiple times? Probably not. But a very large component of the early audience (first few weeks) was male. Then the women started taking over.


That seems plausible.

calvero wrote:
Quote:
I think you hit the nail on the head when you refer to the sizeable adult audience for ‘Titanic’. I believe that ‘Titanic’ was able to attract a lot of people who would normally not go to the cinema not least because of its classical, old-fashioned style and certainly because of its topic, which was prominent in the media in the mid 90ies due to the Titanic exhibition.

I maintain that multiple viewings, presumably by girls and women, were the main reason for ‘Titanic’s phenomenal success. This is anecdotal again, but I have met a number of girls who have seen the movie between five and twelve times in the cinema. I’ve not met any male person, who did so.


I think the first paragraph sort of overrides the 2nd. I maintain that the sizable mass appeal to all ages is the main reason Titanic made 1.8 billion worldwide(I think its sort of a stretch to say numbers like that were mainly reached because teenage girls went to see to see it multiple times - teenage boys & girls are a really small % of the world. They can drive Twilight & Transformers only so far, to get beyond that you need everyone going.
and Avatar made 2.7 billion, with eerily similar staying power to Titanic, were teenagers seeing it many times also the main reason it made that kind of dough?


I am getting the feeling that I am being misunderstood and that it gets worse the more I write. Anyway, I'll try to make my point a bit clearer. I believe that the success of Titanic is largely (not exclusively) due to repeat viewings by a female audience. Whether they were teenagers or not is irrelevant. Yes, a lot of males of all ages watched the film as well, but that is not the main reason behind its stupefying success.

Why should a movie not be highly successful as the result of its success with a teenage audience? Teenagers may make up a small portion of the population, but they certainly constitute a big portion of cinemagoers. A cursory look at the imdb list of highest-grossing films of all time shows that there are a lot of movies in the top 20 or so, which I would consider to be targeted primarily at teenage boys and twens: superhero movies such as Spider-Man or The Dark Knight, Star Wars movies and, indeed, the Transformers movies. I also believe that repeat viewings are the main factor for the commercial success of these movies. I would include Avatar as well, but Avatar's success is probably also the result of the 3D hype at the time.

calvero wrote:
I know some working screenwriters personally who have never seen (or ever had an interest in seeing it seems) any New Wave film. Or anything by Howard Hawks. or John Ford. But they sure do love John Hughes.


That explains a lot about the state of modern cinema, I'm afraid ;)


Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:23 am
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
James Berardinelli wrote:
MinnJD wrote:
I can't remember where I saw it but some article was claiming that Titanic gave rise to the 'hater culture' that causes people to have an irrational hatred of a movie. Not sure I agree with that (Titanic being the first) but it's hard to argue that Titanic does have some serious haters that it doesn't really deserve.


Whoever wrote that article doesn't have a very good memory or wasn't around in the early '80s. There was an enormous backlash against ET which, for many years, would be the box-office champ (can't recall whether it was still the all-time #1 when TITANIC came knocking or whether something else snuck in there). The initial reaction to ET was fawning but a strong undercurrent of hatred began to build. The difference between ET and TITANIC is that there effectively was not Internet in 1982 while there was one in 1997. But the overall arc of public reaction was similar - you just had to pay attention to different signs in '82.

Jurassic Park was actually the #1 film at the box-office before Titanic came along.


Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:40 am
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3184
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
Vexer wrote:
Jurassic Park was actually the #1 film at the box-office before Titanic came along.


Not sure where you came up with that one. In its theatrical run, JURASSIC PARK didn't quite equal ET's 1982 total.($357M for JP to $359M for ET, per boxofficemojo.com)

Here's the full rundown for anyone who's interested:

ET took over the top spot (from STAR WARS) in 1982 with $360M. It added $40M in a 1985 re-release, giving it an even $400M. It stood comfortably in first place until early 1997, when the STAR WARS SPECIAL EDITION re-release pushed STAR WARS past ET. Then along came TITANIC.

Box office leaders (1977 - present):

Summer 1997-Summer 1982: STAR WARS
Summer 1982-February 1997: ET
February 1997-January 1998: STAR WARS
January 1998-January 2010: TITANIC
January 2010-present: AVATAR

As for JURASSIC PARK, I believe it was #3 (behind ET & STAR WARS) from its 1993 release until January 1998. It never topped STAR WARS or ET, but hung in there in third place. Adjusted for inflation, it has held up well. Looking at the post-1977 releases, it's #10 adjusted.


Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:10 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Jurassic Park was actually the #1 film at the box-office before Titanic came along.


Not sure where you came up with that one. In its theatrical run, JURASSIC PARK didn't quite equal ET's 1982 total.($357M for JP to $359M for ET, per boxofficemojo.com)

Here's the full rundown for anyone who's interested:

ET took over the top spot (from STAR WARS) in 1982 with $360M. It added $40M in a 1985 re-release, giving it an even $400M. It stood comfortably in first place until early 1997, when the STAR WARS SPECIAL EDITION re-release pushed STAR WARS past ET. Then along came TITANIC.

Box office leaders (1977 - present):

Summer 1997-Summer 1982: STAR WARS
Summer 1982-February 1997: ET
February 1997-January 1998: STAR WARS
January 1998-January 2010: TITANIC
January 2010-present: AVATAR

As for JURASSIC PARK, I believe it was #3 (behind ET & STAR WARS) from its 1993 release until January 1998. It never topped STAR WARS or ET, but hung in there in third place. Adjusted for inflation, it has held up well. Looking at the post-1977 releases, it's #10 adjusted.


I think when people say Jurassic Park was #1, they're accounting for worldwide box office instead of domestic....it took 'til a couple weeks ago to figure that out.

And Jurassic Park was #2 before Star Wars was re-released ($357 million vs $335 million)

Also, you mean Summer of 1977 for Star Wars as well ;)


Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:53 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 812
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
Dragonbeard wrote:
unwindfilms wrote:
The day will come when we will not need special glasses to watch 3d in the Cinema but until then ..

.. I just read that Cameron thinks that it might take quite some time lol :

Quote:
In a movie theatre, it's anywhere from 10 years to never, because you're talking about hundreds of separate viewing angles. There really is no technology right now that can deal with that, that I've seen - James Cameron


(this isn't a personal attack so don't take it as such, please?)

Why do we even want this day to come? So instead of watching shit movies on a big flat screen, we can watch shit movies in irritating... whatever they will name this new gimmick?

Why do I get the feeling Cameron is sort of missing the point of his own medium? And if not, then he's certainly letting it gradually pass him by. If he genuinely thinks that 3D is the dangling string that will keep us entertained while he makes moar bucks from his shameless charlatanism then he really doesn't think as much of his 'fans' as people have been pointing out.

Just take a look to one side at photography. Since digital cameras became affordable (not good, just affordable) now everyone is a budding photographer... just without the creativity or even the slightest grasp of what the medium is for. This leads me to what I firmly believe is the attitude of 3D pushers today:

"Don't think about it, sheep, just pay us and watch this!! It's 3Deeee!! That makes it better by default!!"


Oh I do not take it as a personal attack but I have to wonder if it is about Cameron ;-) in any case I will keep quoting him because I do not think he is a charlatan as you put it and I have to strongly disagree with that remark
Quote:
Why do we even want this day to come?

Because I found a few people who just do not like wearing glasses and gives that as main excuse for not watching 3D movies

I found technology to be good and you still have to be creative in using it to get back to Cameron he says that only converting Titanic to digital made it better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uja5HdfRX0

In the 3D conversion then came the creative process about applying the depth and that is the reason why other conversions just are messy because relies manly and/or only on technology and do not apply the creative process that only the original director can provide.

I personally like better movies originally shot in 3D and so far I found the depth dimension to be an excellent experience as in "Hugo" and now looking forward to watch The Great Gatsby, Prometheus and the amazing Spider Man.

3D has been there for ages, remember Spy Kids 3D 's Rodriguez and nobody cared much about this technology back then but Cameron showed us a very good mix between a good 3D technology and story telling with Avatar , made billions and now a few directors want to jump on it but the creative process still will be needed

Finally, I am totally against to new movies to be post converted by the studios (because the director did not care to shoot it in 3D, in the first place) to 3D, if the original director did not care about 3D why should I?

Cheers

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:23 am
Profile WWW
Gaffer

Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:17 am
Posts: 36
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
I have no problem with the glasses, I just don't see much use for 3D.

For occasional movies like Avatar it's no big deal, as that was an 'event' movie where the 3D visuals were the whole point (I don't recall one person saying 'see Avatar, it has a great story!'). Aside from that, I don't see any real point to the format other than to jack up ticket prices.

I have to agree with Dragonbeard in saying that Cameron is loosing sight of the benefits of 3D (few as they are). I really wanted to (and did) see Avatar in 3D, and I did enjoy it, but I have absolutely NO desire to see Titanic in 3D (even though I like the movie).

_________________
--If I have to hear "Ya Mo B There" one more time, I'm going to ya mo burn this place to the ground.--


Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:38 pm
Profile
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
MinnJD wrote:
I have no problem with the glasses, I just don't see much use for 3D.

For occasional movies like Avatar it's no big deal, as that was an 'event' movie where the 3D visuals were the whole point (I don't recall one person saying 'see Avatar, it has a great story!'). Aside from that, I don't see any real point to the format other than to jack up ticket prices.

I have to agree with Dragonbeard in saying that Cameron is loosing sight of the benefits of 3D (few as they are). I really wanted to (and did) see Avatar in 3D, and I did enjoy it, but I have absolutely NO desire to see Titanic in 3D (even though I like the movie).


Okay let's just say Avatar was a 'lookie, 3Dee' movie... then sorry but it didn't really deserve the massive praise it received. I'm sure JB didn't just give it four stars for being a great example of 3D.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree to an extent (although I quite like the story in places).

Peter Jackson partly has the right idea by filming 'The Hobbit' at an increased frame rate (the 3D part doesn't interest me at all). It will be interesting to see how this looks on the big screen.


Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:58 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 812
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
MinnJD wrote:
I have no problem with the glasses, I just don't see much use for 3D.

For occasional movies like Avatar it's no big deal, as that was an 'event' movie where the 3D visuals were the whole point (I don't recall one person saying 'see Avatar, it has a great story!'). Aside from that, I don't see any real point to the format other than to jack up ticket prices.

I have to agree with Dragonbeard in saying that Cameron is loosing sight of the benefits of 3D (few as they are). I really wanted to (and did) see Avatar in 3D, and I did enjoy it, but I have absolutely NO desire to see Titanic in 3D (even though I like the movie).


The story of Avatar was not great but very entertaining story in my view. In regarding to the real point to the format, let me bring the opinion of Scorsese (another director who I admire for his use of 3D) :

Quote:
It’s like seeing a moving sculpture of the actor and it’s almost like a combination of theater and film combined and it immerses you in the story more
from http://www.longislandpress.com/2012/04/25/scorsese-says-all-his-future-movies-will-be-3-d/

What are benefits of 3D that Cameron is loosing (or losing?) sight?

Cheers

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:09 am
Profile WWW
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 812
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
Dragonbeard wrote:
MinnJD wrote:
I have no problem with the glasses, I just don't see much use for 3D.

For occasional movies like Avatar it's no big deal, as that was an 'event' movie where the 3D visuals were the whole point (I don't recall one person saying 'see Avatar, it has a great story!'). Aside from that, I don't see any real point to the format other than to jack up ticket prices.

I have to agree with Dragonbeard in saying that Cameron is loosing sight of the benefits of 3D (few as they are). I really wanted to (and did) see Avatar in 3D, and I did enjoy it, but I have absolutely NO desire to see Titanic in 3D (even though I like the movie).


Okay let's just say Avatar was a 'lookie, 3Dee' movie... then sorry but it didn't really deserve the massive praise it received. I'm sure JB didn't just give it four stars for being a great example of 3D.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree to an extent (although I quite like the story in places).

Peter Jackson partly has the right idea by filming 'The Hobbit' at an increased frame rate (the 3D part doesn't interest me at all). It will be interesting to see how this looks on the big screen.


'The Hobbit" looks interesting indeed! now it seems that 10 minute footage failed to impress in CinemaCon
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-features/62980-the-hobbit-disappoints-at-cinemacon
Maybe technology ahead of time? let's see how the full movie turns out :-)
Cheers

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:16 am
Profile WWW
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3184
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
Patrick wrote:
I think when people say Jurassic Park was #1, they're accounting for worldwide box office instead of domestic....it took 'til a couple weeks ago to figure that out.

And Jurassic Park was #2 before Star Wars was re-released ($357 million vs $335 million)

Also, you mean Summer of 1977 for Star Wars as well ;)


Can't really do worldwide for pre-1990, though. Overseas sales were not rigorously kept or available prior to 1990, so no one really knows how STAR WARS and ET did overseas. Also, the entire global market for Hollywood movies has changed radically in the last 15 years.


Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:03 pm
Profile WWW
Gaffer

Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:17 am
Posts: 36
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
[quote="unwindfilms]The story of Avatar was not great but very entertaining story in my view. In regarding to the real point to the format, let me bring the opinion of Scorsese (another director who I admire for his use of 3D) :

Quote:
It’s like seeing a moving sculpture of the actor and it’s almost like a combination of theater and film combined and it immerses you in the story more
from http://www.longislandpress.com/2012/04/25/scorsese-says-all-his-future-movies-will-be-3-d/

What are benefits of 3D that Cameron is loosing (or losing?) sight?

Cheers[/quote]


This is just my opinion, but 3D is a tool. Much like CGI, it is a powerful visual feature, but retrofitting it to movies that were never designed to use it turns it into a gimmick for me.

I still have enormous respect for Cameron, but I'm hoping that sooner or later he realizes that he shouldn't shoehorn his 'filmed for 2D' movies into 3D. I understand that others feel differently, and to paraphrase Bogart: "The opinion of one man doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world"..... :mrgreen:

_________________
--If I have to hear "Ya Mo B There" one more time, I'm going to ya mo burn this place to the ground.--


Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:28 am
Profile
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
3D is indeed a tool--and an incredibly expensive one. It's not that I doubt there is a legitimate use for it, but I doubt that it will be found anytime soon. As a rule of thumb, the more money that is poured into a movie, the less creativity and innovation will be tolerated.


Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:53 am
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 812
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
MinnJD wrote:

This is just my opinion, but 3D is a tool. Much like CGI, it is a powerful visual feature, but retrofitting it to movies that were never designed to use it turns it into a gimmick for me.

I still have enormous respect for Cameron, but I'm hoping that sooner or later he realizes that he shouldn't shoehorn his 'filmed for 2D' movies into 3D. I understand that others feel differently, and to paraphrase Bogart: "The opinion of one man doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world"..... :mrgreen:


It is hard to argue against profit and the retrofitting of Titanic cost $18M to do and the revenue is closing $300M so far. Titanic 3D has been number 1 movie in its weekend of release in China and UK as far as I know. Having said that, I prefer Cameron making new 3D movies than retrofitting his old ones myself too. I am really looking forward to the sequels of Avatar and also hope that he comes up with other ideas for some other 3D new movies too :-)

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:58 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr