-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Where in the World Isn't Bob Saget?
- Thread starter PUSH
- Start date
acishere
Well-Known Member
Doctor Strange at least used it to add to the disorienting nature of the action sequences. It was like those spinning funhouse tunnels at times. TFA had things pop out a bit at you.
Rogue One needed someone like Christopher Nolan to force the studios to not 3D convert it.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
The thing that they missed out on while showing Titanic would have been to flood the theater with ice water to put you right in the scene as the "boat sunk". Now that is what I would call immersion!
JenniferS
When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
Literally.
MinnieM123
Premium Member
Depth?
So what fun is that? I like it when stuff comes flying at you, and you have to fight it off! 
I like to be involved in the action. 
MinnieM123
Premium Member
Don't throw anything at me, but I honestly didn't know Titanic was in 3D. When I saw it years ago in a theater, it was a regular film only.
JenniferS
When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
I like to gasp.Depth?
There was one scene in Titanic 3D where I literally ducked each of the six times that I saw it.
JenniferS
When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
They re-released it in 3-D for the 100th anniversary of the ship's sinking. The original 1997 release was not in 3-D.
I saw it 12 times the first time around, and 6 more in 2012 in 3-D.
JenniferS
When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
The following is an excerpt from Rogers Ebert's review of the 3-D release:
Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
But not quite. There's more to it than that. 3D causes a noticeable loss in the brightness coming from the screen. Some say as much as 20 percent. If you saw an ordinary film dimmed that much, you might complain to the management. Here you're supposed to be grateful you had the opportunity to pay a surcharge for this defacement. If you're alert to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses, they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness. I know why the film is in 3D. It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby way to treat a masterpiece.
Full article here:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/titanic-3d-2012
Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
But not quite. There's more to it than that. 3D causes a noticeable loss in the brightness coming from the screen. Some say as much as 20 percent. If you saw an ordinary film dimmed that much, you might complain to the management. Here you're supposed to be grateful you had the opportunity to pay a surcharge for this defacement. If you're alert to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses, they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness. I know why the film is in 3D. It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby way to treat a masterpiece.
Full article here:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/titanic-3d-2012
MinnieM123
Premium Member
JenniferS
When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
I am a true fan. No apologies.Of course you did!
If it were to be re-released (please God, please God, please God), I swear I would watch it 3-4 times/week for the duration of its release.
The first time around, I had two small babies and a dying father-in-law. The second time around, I had trouble suckering people to go with me.
Now that I know that I am more than comfortable going solo, that would no longer be an impediment. You could come though. My treat.
MinnieM123
Premium Member
Alcohol in the MK -- 39 pages. That is all.
MinnieM123
Premium Member
I am a true fan. No apologies.
If it were to be re-released (please God, please God, please God), I swear I would watch it 3-4 times/week for the duration of its release.
The first time around, I had two small babies and a dying father-in-law. The second time around, I had trouble suckering people to go with me.
Now that I know that I am more than comfortable going solo, that would no longer be an impediment. You could come though. My treat.
I would love to go with you to the movies! I think that would be fun--we could get popcorn and candy, too.
JenniferS
When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
Eliminate the usual "debaters" and you'd have 5 pages. That is all.
MinnieM123
Premium Member
Oh the Ghost and Mr. Chicken is on!
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
NYwdwfan
Well-Known Member
I haven't even poked my head in that one.
MinnieM123
Premium Member
Some people like alcohol in the parks; others don't. Some people want their kiddos in adult cocktail lounges; others don't. (An epic thread in the making . . .
)