Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

TITANIC To Return To Theaters April 6, 2012... In 3D!

Oops!  It's April 6th, not the 12th.  Sorry for the error.

Nordling here.

I think it's common and cynical now to deride James Cameron's TITANIC, considering that until AVATAR it was the most successful film of all time (not adjusted for inflation).  But at the time, it was a Movie Event, one we don't get anymore.  It played well into the next year, won awards right and left, and probably most importantly, changed the way films were made and distributed.  Young girls (and quite a bit of guys too, to be sure) would see the film over and over again.

It was inevitable that James Cameron would revisit this film.  3D is all the rage now, at least for the studios, and since next year will not only be the 15th anniversary of the release of the film but also the centennial of the naval disaster, a re-release of TITANIC was undoubtedly going to happen.  On April 6, 2012, (April 10th, 1912, is the 100th anniversary of the launch), Cameron will re-release TITANIC in 3D to theaters around the world.

The conversion will be supervised by Cameron and Jon Landau, and, according to Cameron, "There's a whole generation that's never seen TITANIC as it was meant to be seen, on the bigscreen, and this will be TITANIC as you've never seen it before, digitally remastered at 4K and painstakingly converted to 3D."

I'm not going to get into a full-blown discussion of 3D here (though I'm quite sure the Talkback will), but I'd be very surprised if this re-release wasn't hugely successful.  We've all seen the film many times, probably, and this will be an opportunity for the next generation to see what all the fuss was about.  If for nothing else, a lot of guys will be seeing it for the 3D sketch sequence alone (the drawing was just auctioned last month, oddly enough).  Not to be crude, but nude Kate Winslet in 3D?  Sign me up.

Nordling, out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 19, 2011, 7:50 a.m. CST


    by Papa Lazaru

    Thanks but no thanks. 3D = gimmick.

  • May 19, 2011, 7:53 a.m. CST


    by Fat and Curious

  • Avatar... ptew!

  • May 19, 2011, 7:53 a.m. CST

    i'd see it alone for kate's IMAX sized yammers coming at me!



  • May 19, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST

    3rd....and booo

    by Lazenby1969

    I just never saw the fuss with this's NOT because I'm a guy- there are quite a few romantic movies I like...I thought the effects were good but that's about it...same way I felt about Avatar..hmmmmmm

  • May 19, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST



    Its a damn shame Mai's burned down otherwise we have a sit down after the ComicPalooza so I can tells ya how to start running this joint proper.

  • May 19, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST

    April 12 is NOT the anniversary! It sank April 15th 1912.

    by irishraidersfan

    Struck the berg 20 minutes before midnight on Sunday the 14th, sank at approximately 2.20am on the 15th. Jesus, being a Titanic nut I know this off the top of my head, but I *bet* Wikipedia would have told you the same. No fact checking, no?

  • May 19, 2011, 7:56 a.m. CST


    by PeanutButterSlut


  • May 19, 2011, 7:58 a.m. CST

    Barb Wire for 3D conversion!

    by MotherPussBucket

    Or how about Supervixens?

  • May 19, 2011, 8:09 a.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    Rose's sweet cans in 3D are the only reason to see that awful film again. Not that I will see it in 3D, but I can IMAGINE those breasts in 3D...

  • May 19, 2011, 8:17 a.m. CST

    This strike anyone else as, well, you know, a bit sick??

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    A re-release on the anniversary if it's maiden voyage?? How fucking twisted is that, it made all the money in the world on it's original release and now they want to capitalize on the sinking itself in a rather cynical way? I love Cameron movies, although I was underwhelmed by Avatar it has to be said. His weakest movie. I do like Titanic though but I won't be supporting this. It seems a pretty twisted thing to do to me.

  • May 19, 2011, 8:31 a.m. CST

    It will go from being the highest grossing film of the 90's...

    by SifoDyasJr the lowest grossing 3D film of the 10's

  • May 19, 2011, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Good film

    by Randy

    The story has flaws, but that final hour of special effects are pretty badass.

  • May 19, 2011, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Yeah, because James Cameron is in need of money

    by alienindisguise

    All this re release shit is money grubbing at it's worst. Theatrical and dvd re-releases can suck my fucking nuts. I wish everyone would realized they're getting fucked by these greedy directors and studios and just stop buying their bullshit.

  • May 19, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    4 K...remastered in 4 k

    by theheavy

    I guess thats great in five to 8 years when you can see it in 4k.. am I missing something here

  • May 19, 2011, 8:45 a.m. CST

    they make so many movies these days

    by Spandau Belly

    There's no way anything could play for a whole year anymore, there's just so many movies coming out all the time that it would force even the biggest most loved blockbuster out.

  • May 19, 2011, 8:51 a.m. CST

    I'm no longer dismayed by anything in Hollywood anymore

    by DiscreetFighterAlpha

    I think this is the breaking point. Bring on that 3D Private Ryan!

  • May 19, 2011, 9 a.m. CST

    Seriously...This is your article.

    by SyntaticalTruth

    Let's be absolutely honest, here. Post 3-D conversion is terrible. It does not work. The idea of re-releasing previous works in 3D is just a way for stakeholders in a film to squeeze a few more dollars out of the movie goers. While I'm generally anti-3D because of a number of problems, so called good 3D films are shot in 3D and not made 3D in post-production. This doesn't surprise me at all. Cameron is just following in George Lucas's footsteps and releasing Titanic again in 3D so he can pad his pocket books a bit more. Now, not only is there Star Wars Ep 1 in 3D in 2012, but we also have Titanic 3d the same year? To what point? I'm sure that Cameron will also go in and digitally adjust any of the special effects shots that he feels need to be updated as well. So shouldn't this really be called Titanic Special Edition? Or better yet, why not give it the most honest title possible? Titanic: The Search for More Money? If Cameron wants to re-release this film as a 15 aniversary tribute to his own success and a 100 year annivesary to the sinking of the ship, that's perfectly fine. But does this really need to be in 3D? What does that add? Instead, the 3D conversion is nothing but a gimmick to put asses in seats. If the movie is good enough to earn over 1 billion dollars in its first release, then shouldn't it be able to earn a reasonable amount in re-release without conversion to 3D? Also, I'm a bit saddened that the author of this article has decided that big selling point for a 3D post-production conversion of a film that won 11 oscars is that the audience will be seeing three dimensional breasts! Have some respect for your readers! You are being crude and it was a pointless jab to try to sell your readers on post-production 3D. The people who want to see a re-release of Titanic are not going to sit through 3 hours of film to see a drawing of a body double of a once famous actress in un-glorious 3D. The audience is going for the romance, the story, the characters, the disaster and the special effects. Simply put, if Titanic is good enough to be re-released, does it need to be in 3D to earn money? The same could be asked of Lucas's re-release of Episode I. Isn't Titantic good enough to stand on it's own without this gimmick? Isn't Episode I bad enough that we don't need a terrible 3D conversion? Simply put, is this necessary or are Cameron and the studio execs just trying to squeeze the extra price of 3D out of movie goers?

  • May 19, 2011, 9:05 a.m. CST

    I'll wait for SW IV-VI 3D, but...

    by Carl XVI Gustaf

    if this gets more money for Cameron to do awesome sci-fi stuff I support this in all ways except with my wallet.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:09 a.m. CST

    On another note

    by SyntaticalTruth

    There are so many other films that could be re-released widely that aren't readily available on VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray. The people who build the Criterion Collection are putting together an amazing catalogue of films that many cinephiles really want to see in theatres. Some of these films could use a re-release to allow critics and audiences to reconnect to forgotten or lost films. More importantly we could re-evaluate some of those films. If that doesn't work, what about giving wide release to foreign films? Rather than letting great foreign films like "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" linger in art house theatres, why not give these a wide release and open American audiences to a wider universe of film instead of the usual faire of Hollywood Action films, subpar comedies, and overwrought dramas?

  • May 19, 2011, 9:09 a.m. CST

    really hint_of_smegma?

    by mike

    This is sick? Twisted? So are the showings of war movies on television channels on memorial day weekend sick and twisted too? The celebrations and remembrances on Independence Day? Or how about the remembrances on 9/11 or December 7th? Or should we ignore the importance of those dates and have moments of silence on random days? By re-releasing this movie on the last day the Titanic WAS IN PORT (READ THE POST IRISRAIDERSFAN), it will give the watching that much more meaning. Which is the entire purpose of releasing it on that date. Yes, they do stand to make money by putting it out on that date. And if that is your true argument, welcome to the U.S.A. And to those complaining about the concept of re-releasing.... Are the companies holding a gun to your head, forcing you to buy/see every version they release? For example: I have not bought one version of the Lord of the Rings. Why? Because when I heard about the extended versions, I had no desire to pick up the standard. Then, I heard about Blu-Ray. I knew that at some point, the extended versions were going to be released. So I waited. And especially now, with Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, and Netflix streaming rentals/viewings of movies, why would you buy the standard version of a movie? Just watch the movies you want and when a version comes out that has the features that you want, buy that one. The only movies that really should get you annoyed are the Criterion releases, because it is much more difficult to find info about the movies they plan on releasing.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Oh Dear...

    by Ciderman

  • May 19, 2011, 9:17 a.m. CST

    3D is for big dumb genres. Not drama's.

    by knowthyself

    I actually love Titanic in the same style as old classic Hollywood, gone with the wind, and the sound of music, it is a great throwback to the golden days of Hollywood. It's a shame tweens ruined it's image. It's a fine film and if you're in the mood for it its classic film making at its finest.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:18 a.m. CST


    by mike

  • May 19, 2011, 9:19 a.m. CST


    by Ciderman

    Here we go, every movie you have ever loved is going to be taken out and abused, so watch out Aliens, keep your head under the covers District 9, don't look now because some ass wipe is going to re-render you in 3D and new CGI to replace perfectly awesome model work.... Bugger...

  • May 19, 2011, 9:20 a.m. CST

    irishraidersfan, read it again

    by Sonny_Williams

    The story specifies that April 12 was the SAILING of TITANIC, not the sinking. Reading comprehension is required here.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:21 a.m. CST

    Uh... hello? Billy Zane in 3D, you fuckers!

    by Inexplicable_Nuclear_Balls

    BILLY ZANE. IN 3D. Cal's gonna have to smack a bitch. IN 3D. What more do you need?

  • May 19, 2011, 9:21 a.m. CST


    by Jeffrey

  • May 19, 2011, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Angry at Life in General? Try AICN TB.

    by Tim Hendon

    I am shaking my head here. First, thanks to Nordling for good info and for some good humor; something most of the posters here sorely lack. Second, filmmaking is a business and Cameron is undeniably one of the best. Titanic is a great film, and it is also a popular film. And third it makes money! This is called living in a market economy. Someone makes something people like, and they pay money for it. No mystery here, and nothing about which to rail against Cameron. I support your freedom of expression but really guys, have you asked yourselves what it is you are really upset about? What bothers me is knee-jerk cynicism and cutting up AICN as a default mode. You are better than this my fellow citizens! I also have no doubt that Cameron will do the best job possible with the conversion (which will look amazing), and once again show why he is the King of Cinema. Life is good if you want it to be. You can also choose to be miserable or spread misery as your right it is to do so; but why choose this path when life is just waiting to be enjoyed, like a perfect set of breasts laid bare and heaving before your eyes in glorious 3d? I am in.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:23 a.m. CST

    by SyntaticalTruth

    This reminds me of Ted Turner's attempts to colorize the films he owned the rights to. Hopefully, people will stand up against this otherwise we'll have a colorized, 3D version of Casablanca with a new ending.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:26 a.m. CST


    by Tim Hendon

    Right on!

  • May 19, 2011, 9:27 a.m. CST


    by BSB

    One of my favorite movies of all time, and a convincing, touching love story. If this weren't in 3D, I probably wouldn't feel the need to see it again in the theater. But if Cameron himself is overseeing the conversion, I trust him implicitly to deliver a great experience. I imagine some of the scenes and shots of the sinking will be amazing to witness in 3D. Can't wait, really. Why'd you have to report this so early? Fuck I'm impatient.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:27 a.m. CST


    by Tim Hendon

    Hell yes, sir!

  • May 19, 2011, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Hey, Irishraidersfan, the voyage WAS on the 12th

    by lukasman

    Thats what the article says. It sank on the 15th, but the voyage started on the 12th. Calm down...

  • May 19, 2011, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Hey, Irishraidersfan, the voyage WAS on the 12th

    by lukasman

    Thats what the article says. It sank on the 15th, but the voyage started on the 12th. Calm down...

  • May 19, 2011, 9:33 a.m. CST


    by BSB

    They really don't make women like Rose anymore. Sigh.

  • What an arrogant, self-righteous, self-obsessed cunt.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:36 a.m. CST

    i'm waiting for Nanny McPhee to be rereleased in 3D

    by Nick

  • will be pure magic. I'm getting choked up already. Fuck.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Wow, what's really exciting about this is...

    by Twisk

    ...that whether objects are near, far, wherever they are - I believe that heart will go onnnnn annnnnddd onnnnnnnnnnnn.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:44 a.m. CST


    by Spielbergs Furious Racism

    "Negative I am a meat popsicle"- Robert Pattinson

  • May 19, 2011, 9:50 a.m. CST

    I don't give a whit about 3D, but I'll see it again!

    by HyphenatedWords

    Every time I watch this film, about once every two or three years, I wonder how on earth people can hate it or avoid seeing it. It's beautiful, historically accurate in the the details supporting the drama, and has a place in history.<br> <br> I can't see Victor Garber without thinking "It's Mr. Andrews!"

  • May 19, 2011, 9:58 a.m. CST

    In Jim I Trust.

    by Flip63Hole

    I'm sure the conversion will be great, I'm intrigued. The movie was pretty amazing the first time I saw it in the theater, didn't really stand up to repeated viewings for me, but I'll still see it. I like Jim, Kate, Leo and there's some cool technology in Titanic worth rewatching. I'm just curious, when they convert a 2D film to 3D and they have the CG material where they can actually re-render the second 3D layer as if seen from the second eye, do they bother since they can't do that to the rest of the real material?

  • May 19, 2011, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Kate Winslet's nipples in 3D??

    by kidicarus

    When do the tickets go on sale?

  • May 19, 2011, 10:15 a.m. CST

    The Voyage started on the 10th!

    by Shannon Nutt

    Titanic's voyage started on April 10th, hit the iceburg on the 14th, and sank on the 15th. Nothing much of anything happened on the 12th. My only guess is Cameron is releasing it on Thrusday, April 12th, because he doesn't want to release it on Friday the 13th, but doesn't want to lose that Friday either for box-office take. No telling how many news outlets (including this one!) will now "change history" with that bogus date!

  • May 19, 2011, 10:18 a.m. CST


    by BSB


  • May 19, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST


    by thot

    Gimme a break. Most movies don't benefit from 3D. Some are suitable, mainly heavy CGI effects-laden films, but the rest should be left alone. Avatar 3D made sense but Titanic,....nah.

  • May 19, 2011, 10:24 a.m. CST

    Kate's boobs scanned at 4K?? What a job that guy has...

    by performingmonkey

    God I would love to be the guy doing the re-scanning of the film for THAT particular scene!! I wonder if Cameron will do any effects touch-ups for the re-release. Some shots might look a little poor at 4K. Of course, some of the best practical effects work/sets/rigs/props in cinema history will be retained and stand the test of time. It's a phenomenal movie on the technical side.

  • May 19, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST


    by BSB

    He coulda been big in America. He coulda had his own family.

  • There's a big difference between a movie related to an event showing on certain dates on tv or whatever, and a cynical cash grab cinema re-release designed to pluck at heart strings because of that date. It's an engineered release to capitalise on the sailing of the ship, and the deaths of those people. It's most certainly not being done in remembrance of the people who died, so jump off that high horse sonny. Now I don't well up at the thought of people dying needlessly. Happens everyday, and I'm certainly not sniffling over people who took an unfortunate swim 100 years ago. They weren't anything to me, not forebears, not relatives, not friends so why would I care? I'm talking about the cynicism of the release itself. If you don't see that, fine. To me though it's somewhat of a twisted move, to say the least.

  • May 19, 2011, 10:36 a.m. CST


    by mike

    (hate my computer sometimes) First, this website has a DVD review that routinely delves into the "hotness" of the women and men in the movie. And that reviews as many "softcore" movies as mainstream movies. To be upset at Nordling's funny little aside should be the same as getting upset at the site itself. And if so, why visit? Not angry, just curious. Now, onto the more serious parts of your post. You said it yourself. Titanic made over a billion dollars and far more on liscensing, tv views, dvd, bluray, and now internet viewings. I highly doubt Cameron or fox or whoever owns the rights need the money. In fact, I doubt that its even going to make 150 million in the U.S. It'll probably make a decent amount overseas, where they love 3D movies. (Alice-700 million overseas, Avatar-2.02 billion overseas. You can't tell me that the majority of that was not 3D viewings.) What I can't understand is the people who regularly post and question directors that are making their movies into 3D. Did you ever think that maybe they didn't make it in 3D or on a shoestring budget with lackluster special effects because they didn't have a choice? Yes, there are directors that want the audience to see their movies passively, or that feel that their movies are perfect with flaws. But, I can't believe that all directors are like that. If I made a movie and technology progressed to allow me to make my movie that much more immersive, nothing could stop me from editing the original. That's the goal here. To make a great film that much more. Speaking of 3D, it boggles my mind that geeks and nerds and whatever we call ourselves, can be upset with it. Can you guys not see the endgoal? Or have you forgotten? One word: holodeck. And yes, that is at the end of all the advances in movies and videogames. 3D is just a step to get there. As was color, and surround sound. Now, onto the point of Criterion, foreign, or "arthouse" titles. In what world do you think that GwtDT would make nearly as much money as, say Thor did, on the same exact number of screens and with the same marketing push? While these movies are great and everything, the simple fact is that no matter what, in the U.S., they don't make money. They just don't. And they never will. The majority of people that go to the theater in the U.S. don't want to spend their money on them. I believe it has to do with the "worth it" factor. As in, is it worth it to spend upwards of $20 (for two people) on a movie that is not built around the utilization of sound or effects in a building that IS built around sound and effects. Yes, there are outliers like Black Swan. But the great majority of them make very little money in U.S. theaters. And sadly, that is far too important in the movie industry.

  • May 19, 2011, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Can't take it anymore!

    by Seven_of_Borgnine

    I once loved this movie because I love the history of the ship, it was amazing to see it physically brought to life after all those years of having nothing but scant grainy B&W photos, written testimonies, and watery grave shots. I love Cameron because of Aliens and the first two Terminators. I love The Abyss for the sheer insane scale of the physical water effects alone. Titanic was an easy sell for me and I could not wait to see it. I saw it in a theater five times. But there is no force on earth that can make me watch it again. Why? The dialogue, the liberties taken with some of the history, and any melody related to My Heart Will Go On. ACK!!! Never again. The flaws of the movie were only amplified by the social phenomenon that the movie became, backlash and all. This movie gave me a case of cinematic overdose from which I may never recover. It's too bad, really, since it was a pretty amazing spectacle. I wonder... if Titanic had failed commercially, would it now be a cute little cult movie?

  • Doesn't matter * how * much money they made on this film. If they could make a "GA - GILLION" MORE DOLLARS ON IT, THEY WOULD. TOO MUCH MONEY IS NEVER ENOUGH. MWOO-HAHAHAHAHAAAAA

  • Oh yeah! That's right! More money. I keep forgetting.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:02 a.m. CST


    by TheMark

    Hahahaha, that cracked me up. Thanks TylerDurden2k11. It's totally the truth though! I wanna get all holodecked out.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:08 a.m. CST


    by mike

    Cynical? Really? When I watched it, I saw a movie that centered around the story of a little old lady. Didn't care if it made tons of money. Didn't care about the people on the ship or their families. I cared about the little old lady passing along a story. Whether it was true or not. Granted, Cameron and his backers thought the story of the Titanic could be worth a ton of money. But without they story of Rose, the human part of the film doesn't exist and it doesn't make a mint. You can call me simple or naive or whatever, but I don't look at it as Cameron sitting back and wondering what world event he could exploit for money. Also, to sit there and say that its a cash grab and that no one should stand for this. Well I got news for you. You got a lot more to complain about on internet message boards regarding the anniversary. A quick google search of Titanic 100th anniversary returns this: There are no less than 4 cruises and 4 plays already announced for next year. The plays are running the days of the original voyage. Only two cruises will be on the water the same days of the original. And I would expect something during the opening of the London Olympics will be Titanic related. Belfast, the city where it was launched from, is currently and will continue to have celebrations. I'm sorry if you see movies and events like these as cynical. It must suck to be so negative all the time.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Nordling's big sell is tits?

    by Nigel_Coolbeard

    Goddamn that guy sucks. Who the fuck keeps letting him turn his thoughts into words? And for those of you saying you'd see this for the tits, I call bullshit.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:21 a.m. CST


    by Meadowe

    I remember our family having the 2 tape vhs, and then someone got us the dvd, which of course had the film on 1 dvd along with just the trailer. Then the 3 disc special edition came out. We got it when it was like $8 or something at costco...the features were coo' (one easter egg had the "real" ending where they beat up Rose for not knowing where the heart of the ocean is, and Jim Cam stating that test audiences hated this version) but once again they split the movie into two discs. Just like The Godfather II dvd, and even another DiCaprio film we had was split in two, Gangs of New York. I thought that was one of the big selling points of dvd (and now blu ray) was that one disc could hold so much information yet still have a great picture/sound etc. Anyway, I will not be seeing this in 3d, we already have 3 different copies of this movie and that's enough.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:25 a.m. CST


    by mike

    Yeah I know its kinda funny to say outloud and everything, but I fully believe that's where movie/tv/videogame tech is going. I don't neccasarily(sp) think that it was the plan all along. But when virtual reality was imagined, it became the endgoal. Look at the tech advances in the movies/tv/videogames. Everything is built to make the mediums that much more immersive than before. But, it also must be reached through steps. Imagine the iphone or ipad coming out in 2000. This is before the launch of the the original ipod (2001). Now imagine explaining it to someone from that year. It would have died quickly and sadly. But, after years of small advances, we can understand and accept the iphone and ipad. (and buy it in large numbers) Hell, look at the Kinect. Prior to it coming out, all I saw was posts about how it wouldn't work, wouldn't sell, noone would want to play games on it, etc. Since it launched, all I've seen is posts talking about the potential uses of it, the amazing things that people have done with it. Sorry to go off on a tangent like that, it's just that I can't understand the people that sit there and complain about becoming closer to being "in" the movie/tv show/videogame.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Will they "fix" the 1990s-era CGI?

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Not to sound like George Lucas, but it would be great if they could somehow update the CGI to make it more...believable. It was great for its time, but even many video games look more realistic now.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:27 a.m. CST


    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    They wouldn't have to update much...because most of the film was completed via working sets, models and real life shoots. I just want them to "update" the major that one major post "king of the world" fly-by.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:28 a.m. CST

    James Cameron has a beer and cheats on 3D

    by unparanoid_android

  • May 19, 2011, 11:31 a.m. CST

    without Leo And Kate the human part of the story doesn't exist??!!

    by Carl's hat

    Tylerdurden, come on down! That's going onto my list of top 10 dumbest bullsit AICN posts of all time. Go and read the 1955 book "A Night To Remember", maybe even catch the film from '58. The sinking of the Titanic and the loss of over 1500 people is inherently sad, poignant and even dramatic. But you and James Cameron felt you needed to focus on two fictional characters, Leo and Kate, to humanise the story?? That'd be hilarious if it wasn't so fuckin' narrowminded, cynical and condescending to film audiences and disrespectful to the men, women and children who really did die that night.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:31 a.m. CST


    by mike

    I recently watched the final cut of Alexander. In the introduction, Oliver Stone said that he split the film between the two discs so that the tradition of Intermission would exist again. Up until that, I had never thought about intermission, simply because I had never been to a movie that had one. I had been to plays with intermissions, but I never connected the two. I gotta believe that's what's behind the splitting of the movie over two discs.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:49 a.m. CST

    carl's hat: thanks for mentioning "A Night To Remember"

    by WriteForTheEdit

    I admit I was moved by "Titanic" but if you want to weep like a bitch, check out that classic. Everyone singing as the ship goes down? Fuck, I am tearing up just thinking about it right now. That is a great, great movie.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:50 a.m. CST

    So According To Hollywood A "Generation" Is 15 years?

    by HarryWhereIsYourInceptionReview


  • May 19, 2011, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Bodies falling off of Titanic in 3-D



  • May 19, 2011, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Tyler, you evidently have problems of your own.

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    I'll try and keep a reign over my 'constant negativity'. You seem determined to misinterpret most of what I've said so let me be clear. I never said the film itself was a cynical cash grab. I said rereleasing it on the anniversary is. Which it is. If you dont see thet then you're blind. As to the cruises and such, yes I'm aware of them. All I can say is, I'm glad I'm not that tacky to be booking a place on one.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:52 a.m. CST


    by mike

    I can't say I've read "A Night" or seen the movie. But I stand behind what I said. Yes, what happened was tragic. Yes, the loss of 1500 people and the way they died is sad, poignant and dramatic. However, in today's world, (can't speak for 1990 as I was 6) the sad fact is that people have become desensitized to numbers. Turn on the news, read the paper, go on the internet and we are bombarded with numbers. Terrorist attacks, the latest casualties of war, accidents, disasters both natural and man made, kidnappings. EVERYDAY. No respite, no breaks. So, to get people to care (and up viewers) what do news companies do? They focus on one or two or a handful of people involved. They talk about their family, their friends, their pets. They show pictures of the one or two or handful. All while still acknowledging the rest of the people involved. And yes, movies, tv, books, videogames all follow suit. Blind Side. To get people to care about the innercity kids in Amercia, they focus on the story of one kid. Hurt Locker. How many bomb squads are in the middle east? They movie talks about one. The Cove. To bring attention to the plight of ocean animals, they focus on one cove. Just about any war movie ever focuses on a small number of people involved, not the entire military. So yes to make people care, to get them to have actual feelings for the people on the Titanic, Cameron focused on two people. Maybe humanizing was a bad word, but I stand by the fact that people wouldn't care nearly enough about the film if it wasn't about Jack and Rose(and yeah I know it wasn't true)

  • May 19, 2011, 11:54 a.m. CST

    I'M still waiting on the 3-D IMAX release of Hot Dog: The Movie

    by Wilford_Brimleys_Diabetes_Rage

  • May 19, 2011, 11:55 a.m. CST


    by mike

  • May 19, 2011, 11:59 a.m. CST


    by mike

    When would you release it then? During the holidays when it would be seen as an attempt at getting a piece of that money? During the summer, when it would have to compete not only for an audience but for screens? Perhaps post holidays in January? Oh wait, that would be seen as capitilizing on Valentine's Day. Really, that leaves the fall. And no meaning. So my question is when would you release the movie?

  • May 19, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    TITANIC as it was meant to be seen...

    by lobotmf you've never seen it before.

  • May 19, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST


    by mike

    And perhaps I made the mistake of lumping you in with everyone else who complains on this and all over the internet. If so, I am sorry. It can be very frustrating simply trying to be a fan of things on the internet.

  • I mean, really, otherwise, big fucking deal...

  • May 19, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Carl's Hat is Correct

    by wrx

  • May 19, 2011, 12:07 p.m. CST

    The Titanic vs. The Black Pearl

    by kiwicanuck

    I remember hearing Johnny Depp criticizing the script for Titantic years ago on Stern, saying he couldn't get past page three or something similar. Of course, years later Depp leaps on board Pirates 2 through 4 - three awful, disjointed, cringe-inducing dialogue filled piece-of-shit screenplays in a fricking row. I wonder if he would have done the Pirates flicks back in the day, or the cash made from Pirates 1 changed his tune. As for Titantic, I quite liked the movie at the time, while recognizing some awfully cheesy moments. The scope was truly impressive though, the score moving, and the performances rose above the script...except for Zane. Man, I'm surprised that dude got a word out with all the scenery stuffed in his yapper. Still, I shed some tears. Of course maybe that's because Celine Dion was singing me out the door.

  • May 19, 2011, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Very cool

    by Mike

    some of you people get very upset... it was a good movie then, it'll be cool to see it again in 3D I swear some of you act like you're being forced to see it or something,'s your choice, you can breathe

  • ....horrible from a writing and acting angle. I'm a huge James Cameron fan but I still don't understand why Titanic is so highly regarded. Wow, it made a shit load of money but so did Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

  • May 19, 2011, 12:17 p.m. CST

    If there's bonus footage of Jack giving Rose a 3D facial...

    by theDORK

    ...I'm in. Otherwise, pass.

  • May 19, 2011, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Titanic is a good fuckin movie... Get over it

    by Nomoredirtyanything

    Also I think if anyone has earned the right to show us how post 3D is done it is James Muthafuckin Cameron...... I'm with Motoko.... Fuckin your eyeballs up the ass and out the mouth in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • May 19, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Will Kate's boobs be any bigger in 3D?

    by Pizza The Hut

    ...Didn't think so...

  • May 19, 2011, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Irishraidersfan...He said it was the anniversary of the launch...

    by Trace Thurman

    ...not the sinking of the ship. The ship set sail on April 10. Learn to read please.

  • May 19, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    People like crap - so what?

    by TheComedian77

    There's nothing to 'get over', it's a film almost as over rated as Avatar. As for Nordling saying it's 'fashionable' to dislike Titanic - bullshit. Not everyone went to see Titanic twice. I didn't even go to the cinema ONCE to see it. Moreover in terms of this 'too cool for school' shit.........there are films which flopped on release or were slated by the critics but are beloved now. Example; The Thing. Now - isn't the reverse possible??? Films which ruled at the box office, but are universally sniggered at years later? I think so. It's time people stopped defending Titanic, Avatar (and any other lame ducks) by saying 'but it's made so much money! You have to admit it's good!' That's about as retarded as when people bash films like 'Scott Pilgrim Vs The World' with 'look how much money it's made - that proves it's shit'. Yeah.......cause The Thing was shit, right? Slither was shit, right? WRONG! Oh, and Titanic is singlehandedly responsible for folks (myself included) assuming Leonardo DiCaprio was a bad actor for many years. I eventually ate my hat. Aviator / Inception / Shutter Island FTW. Titanic = Not the 'King of the world'.

  • May 19, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    And guess what?!?!?!?!?

    by A_Die_Hard_Fan

    I still won't see the fucking movie. This is one movie I am damn proud to have NEVER seen.

  • May 19, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    How many times did you see it Nordling?

    by Arafel

  • May 19, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST

    James Cameron is a money grubbing fucking hack!

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    He's getting like George Lucas milking the fucking cash cow!.. Kerching!

  • May 19, 2011, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Me? I'm holding out for a 3D conversion of Zapped!

    by Astronut

    ... starring Scott Baio and Willie Ames.

  • May 19, 2011, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Enough time to stock up on Kleenex

    by donkingkong

  • May 19, 2011, 2:06 p.m. CST

    cue the clueless morons calling 3D a gimmick...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    3D is not a gimmick, its simply another tool in the tool box of a filmmaker, and like any tool it can be overused or not used properly... we hear sound in 3D, so the natural evolution from mono to stereo was 3 dimensional surround sound, geeks seem to have no problem with that. we see in 3D, so the next logical step is the progression into 3D images JUST LIKE SOUND...yet geeks are now in an uproar??? just like the early versions of sound weren't perfect and somewhat misused, these early iterations of 3D are having the kinks worked get genuinely used 3D in avatar, a big step forward for that tool which used it to IMMERSE the audience into the film much like surround sound, but then you get crap like My Bloody Valentine in 3D or other shitfest movies that abuse the 3D tool and just start throwing shit at the audience... that last statement is why raging geeks think 3D is some kind of gimmick, it simply hasn't been used properly yet...its the same with the Hobbit being shot at projected at 48fps...raging homosexual geeks got their panties in a bunch over that one, crying about it looking like a "soap opera", and it being sacrilegious and that cinema should only be at 24 fps...but here's where you fags lose the argument. Douglas Trumbull the FX wizard behind 2001, Blade Runner and Close Encounters did a scientific study with frame rates...he gathered an audience and scientifically studied their emotional responses to scenes shot at different frame rates (shot and project at the same rate)...guess what? the higher the frame rate went, the more emotionally involved the audience became...started at 24fps, then went to 48, then to 60, and it topped out at 72fps...with each jump in frame rate, the audience's emotional response grew in direct response. source: and the higher frame rates actually start to mimic 3D, since the images get so clear that it no longer looks like a movie screen, but a window, and then the window disappears... so these innovations are the real deal, and you're always going to get fags crying and resisting, just like there were with every innovation that came down the pipeline, from airplane travel to DVDs, to modern PCs...resistance is futile

  • May 19, 2011, 2:11 p.m. CST

    has_snyder_been_fired_from_superman_yet : don't like Winslet nude?


    You're gay, man. And I mean that literally. It's cool; I have no problem with that; I wish you well. But you must realize that you are a homosexual man.

  • May 19, 2011, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Internet is the sole reason for haters

    by wwhite333

    honestly I visit aicn at least once a day to check up on movie news and shit. I never even thought of signing up to be able to talk in these discussion boards. I gotta say the more I come on here to see what people have to say about new trailers, movie news, or film updates all I hear is pissing and moaning from "movie fans" about every little thing. I'm not sure if it's the faceless and impersonal accounts that lead to people constantly running their mouths over the boards, shutting other people's ideas down, or simply having nothing positive to add to the conversation but it's quite obvious people come on these message forums to basically bash whatever anyone else is saying/discussing. Going through this specific list of messages the majority of the posts are mean spirited. There are several posts (and I'm sorry if I'm forgetting your names here) that have quality things to say about Cameron's decision (forgone conclusion more like it) to convert to 3D; but those few intelligent posts are far outnumbered by people who only want to bash Cameron and 3D without giving any real reason as to why they hate him or his recent movies. Is there really any need to call Cameron a money grubbing fucking hack? I'm sure I'm going to take a shit ton of backlash and be run out of the room by "true movie fans", but people who love movies can say a flick isn't their cup of tea or they thought it was overrated but to make personal attacks or to get vulgar just seems a bit much. 3D may end up being a gimmick, but while it's around, and done properly I will give it a chance.

  • May 19, 2011, 2:29 p.m. CST

    God, is he fucking serious about this?

    by Stalkeye

    OK, thanks to Avatar and of course his cinematech, everyf fucking thing nowadays is 3D! Sure, he may have saved the motion picture industry from dwindling box office returns, but now to re-release a film about a ship sinking in 3D is redundant or the fact that JC is getting high off his ego. fucking PASS!

  • Geez, either you have had much better or just a pillow biter. Sowwies

  • May 19, 2011, 2:38 p.m. CST

    If we're talking famous celebrity boobies...

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    I just saw Gia a few weeks ago, and was surprised by the amount of nudity onscreen, thanks to Miss Jolie. And she, like when Winslet made Titantic, was 22-ish when it was made. She shares the same birth year as Winslet.

  • May 19, 2011, 2:52 p.m. CST

    I saw 2 mins of the 3D and...

    by madhouseman

    WOW. I saw the part where the ship tilted straight up and down and it was incredible. They showed clips of it about 2 years ago in 3D at a special screening at the Director's Guild and the crowd of directors went nuts! I will be seeing this rerelease the first weekend. I hope it does well.

  • But you really owe it to yourself to at least watch it, rather than avoiding it, before forming your opinion. I'm firmly on the side of those who love the hell out of it. It has such a grand scale to it, and it's so beautifully made from beginning to end. I don't think there's another 3 hour movie that can keep my attention as this does. This is a visionary's film done without compromise.

  • She launched May 31st 1911, set sail on her maiden voyage 10th April 1912 from Southampton. Reader comprehension? Fuck you, guys!

  • May 19, 2011, 3:04 p.m. CST


    by BSB

    But damn if this film doesn't have one of the most beautiful scores ever.

  • May 19, 2011, 3:19 p.m. CST


    by PinkFloyd7

    I will be there. Will you?

  • May 19, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST

    No, buffybuddy? Not learned to stop talking shit?

    by irishraidersfan

    Can't use google to fact check either, no? Ya tit!

  • May 19, 2011, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Highest Grossing

    by ZooTrain

    Highest grossing does not equal good. "American Idol" was the highest-rated show, and it ruined television. "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" was the highest-rated show, and it just proved how stupid people are. Ke$ha is a superstar while Neko Case remains relatively obscure. Titanic made lots of money, yes. But the awards it won were not deserved. Of the 5 nominees that year, Titanic was the worst.

  • May 19, 2011, 3:46 p.m. CST

    highest grossing

    by wwhite333

    Completely agree Mr. Train that highest grossing or most popular rarely aligns with true quality. And I agree L.A. Confidential is a deeper, more thought provoking and complex pic, but Titanic is far from bad. In fact I think it's quite good and is one of my favorites (I can admit a movie is ok, good, or even bad and still have it on my favorite list) and even though it may be sappy and cliched in the good guy/bad guy department (I mean Lovejoy, come on, bad name and an awfully bad bad guy) but when the final third rolls around and the chaos ensues and the death toll begins to mount and the whole time we're watching we know so many people actually died, it's tough not to feel moved. Especially with Cameron's mastery of an action scene - when the camera pulls back down that hallway rapidly and doors are crashing in and water is flying everywhere, I get goosebumps. Whenever a movie is so stirring, whether that's because of the story or characters, or even the music accompanying the images on the screen, I find it to be a success. Best Picture doesn't really mean anything. Sure if "my movie" from a certain year wins, I'm elated. If it loses, I'm briefly pissed. Going back to Saving Private Ryan, one of the truly great films of any genre, everyone was so annoyed and infuriated that Shakespeare in Love won. Sure in the awards department SPR probably got the shaft and was obviously a more important picture than Shakespeare, but they were both terrific films. Just because a movie beats another on awards night that doesn't prove anything. I even thought the Full Monty was awesome, but that was a small movie, with small town ideas and in the grand scheme of things had little to no chance to beat Titanic; a factual based idea with a big picture mentality. But to get back to your point, yes you're right, merely because something outsells the competition in no way does that prove it is better.

  • May 19, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST

    What's More Entertaining Than Avatar and Titanic?

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Fanboys struggling to defend and apologize for James Cameron's horrible movies and massive ego.

  • May 19, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Would love to see the Terminator (first two) films in 3d!

    by RobertoInfinite

  • May 19, 2011, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Titanic in 3D

    by Nat Bruzzese

  • May 19, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Titanic in 3D

    by Nat Bruzzese


  • May 19, 2011, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Thanks but no thanks.

    by AsimovLives

    I don't hate the movie. I actually like it. But i'm getting fed up with this 3D fad bullshit.

  • May 19, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST


    by armtv

    Internet is the sole reason for haters by wwhite333 Well said...couldn't have put it better myself. For everything you hate about whatever you are hating it on....if it helps hollywood make money so it can 'get it right' every once in a while then so be it. You are constantly waiting for the perfect movie and shitting on everything else...PEOPLE if you got your wish and all the 'shit' was too would the money and ...finally your perfect movie that you are searching for would be stopped as well. Appreciate that someone else is trying on a daily basis to get it right for you and will not always hit but atleast we have product to sort through. Bypass what you wish but allow those who do enjoy it...EN-FUCKING-JOY It. i LOVE Michael Bay more because of you haters and soo too James Cameron. Continue on with your hate speech.

  • May 19, 2011, 4:31 p.m. CST


    by armtv

    should have put a better pause between 'couldn't have put it better myself and for everything you hate. sounds like I am talking to you but I am not. agreeing with you and moving on to haters

  • May 19, 2011, 4:31 p.m. CST

    i will hate for a second

    by armtv

    i hate this talk back format that I have to click on everyone to there away to expand all?

  • May 19, 2011, 4:32 p.m. CST

    ohh shit

    by armtv

    my bad. I see the expand all now. thanks

  • May 19, 2011, 4:33 p.m. CST

    I honestly tried watching it all

    by empty_headed_animal

    but couldn't. And this is coming from someone who generally likes cameron's films. I think the fact that someone from steerage would never have even gotten close to a 1st class passenger in those days killed it for me. That and I knew the ending already.

  • May 19, 2011, 4:43 p.m. CST


    by TheComedian77

    Nothing objective or rational about you. But that's Avatar fanboys for you. But go ahead "prove" that they are great you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I hate Avatar, you love it. They are opinions. You cannot 'prove' that a film is great. I simply pointed out that the idea that a film is great because it made a tonne of cash (an idea espoused here often) is dumb. I don't think Avatar will be remembered that fondly 20, 30 years from now. Oh, and thanks for sharing your opinion on DiCaprio. Thank you SO much! Let me know when you get past watching Smurfs In Love.

  • May 19, 2011, 4:47 p.m. CST

    I appreciate the almost real time feel the film takes

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    once the ship hits the iceberg. But seriously, the Jack and Kate characters would have suffered from hypothermia, sloshing around in that close to freezing water in the ship. And Cameron's tin ear dialogue? Ouch. But on a purely technical level, it is brilliant.

  • Summed up perfectly ...

  • May 19, 2011, 5:20 p.m. CST

    "i LOVE Michael Bay more because of you haters"

    by AsimovLives

    That's the worst reason for liking that piece of shit Michael Bay i ever heard in my whole life.

  • May 19, 2011, 5:47 p.m. CST


    by vezner2007

    Titanic sucked. Avatar sucked. Both movies are only worth watching for the special effects. If you want to re-release some good James Cameron movies, how about Aliens and Terminator 2?

  • It has tits and bush...and it's PG13. Of course most people dont know theres bush. Watch carefully in the widescreen version...when Kate Winslet adjusts her position on the couch....for a few frames you see full on bush.

  • May 19, 2011, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Kate Winslet's melons in 3D!!!!!

    by lv_426

    Now that's putting the "tit" in Titanic.

  • May 19, 2011, 6:05 p.m. CST

    the world ended wednesday last week? who knew!

    by Bouncy X

  • May 19, 2011, 6:25 p.m. CST

    It still sinks

    by trekguy1966

    Damn good movie, though, no matter what the party poopers here say. Nothing makes them happy except their own lonely penises.

  • May 19, 2011, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Titanic is a fucking all-time classic MASTERPIECE.FACT.

    by KilliK

    whoever disagrees he should stop watching movies prondo. oh and Iron Jim is a cinematic GOD.ANOTHER FACT.

  • the other to look for the rest of your life.i dare you if you truly believe this shitty statement.

  • I pity you fool.

  • May 19, 2011, 6:43 p.m. CST

    I saw TITANIC one time...and once was enough...

    by ninpobugei

    Horrible movie, stupid & cliche with some seriously bad acting. I don't know if I'd like it better now, but NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL would I pay to see it in 3D.</P> <P> NO.</p> <p> FUCKING</p> <p> WAY.</P> <P> Burn me once, shame on me. Burn me twice...shame on me again for being dumb enough to pay $10 to see a previously shitty movie (and this is coming from someone who loves movies like THE HOLIDAY, NO STRINGS ATTACHED and YOU'VE GOT MAIL).

  • May 19, 2011, 6:45 p.m. CST


    by ninpobugei

    I saw burn me once, shame on me because we had a cheesy trailer that should have been some indication of what we were in for...but I stupidly believed that show-stopping SFX would make the difference. Boy, was I wrong!

  • You've Got Mail!!!!?????? DUDE! The Hanks, Ryan shit-fest?? Fuck.

  • May 19, 2011, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Kate Winslet in 3DD

    by kafka07

    I'm hot for Winslet and would see any of her movies in 3D, preferably the ones she is naked in.

  • May 19, 2011, 7:53 p.m. CST

    3D is not a fad, its not going anywhere, not after avatar made $3 billion

    by Billy_D_Williams

    so stop whining like a little bitch

  • May 19, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    "I think it's common and cynical now to deride James Cameron's TITANIC"

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Then. Now. Always.

  • A man who has laid uncountable miles of pipe to Kelly Brook. After this, they will know the name of Zane. Oh yes, they will know. RESPECT!!!

  • May 19, 2011, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Titanic didn't deserve the VFX Oscar

    by Charlie

    There were some comments before on the dated look of it's effects. Compare it to what it was up against for Visual Effects Oscar. The Lost World and Starship Troopers. Both, particularly Starship Troopers stand up really well today. Besides for a few shots, most of it is of a quality that could be released today.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:09 p.m. CST

    Screw you, Cameron. 3-D is a joke, and so was DateMovietanic.

    by IronEagle74

    Stop trying to force 3-D down everyone's throat.

  • Why not? Since 3-D and CGI have replaced all sense of a plot, acting, etc., then why not just make everything 3-D and convert all the old movies?

  • May 19, 2011, 9:24 p.m. CST

    No Strings Attached

    by wwhite333

    There is a perfect example of your taste in movies not really mattering to someone else. Who cares if you like silly, critically panned movies - this is not condescending here, one of my all time favorite flicks is Armageddon. I know it's a sloppy mess and all and probably %100 inaccurate - if there is an asteroid the size of Texas, why do they only have to drill down a few hundred feet?? but every time it's on I watch it and once again get swept up in the light and sound show and absolutely love it. Just because you didn't like Titanic that doesn't mean anyone who does sucks or has terrible taste in movies. I don't begrudge you for liking movies I may think are bad, and likewise you shouldn't chuck people under the bus because they don't like a flick you have in your favorites list. By throwing in some of your more ashamed films for everyone to see, and then turning around and completely bashing a movie that most people love is pointless. Don't go see it again. Don't get burned again. Those who loved it the first time or the 10th time will go see it once more. I guess I don't understand your very vocal opinion that TITANIC ABSOLUTELY SUCKED!! Fuck that and fuck this about Cameron. Cliche this and cliche that. Why lambaste a movie just because it's being re-released?

  • May 19, 2011, 9:25 p.m. CST

    It's worth seeing again at a theater for one important reason

    by Dreamwriter

    The bass. They showed Titanic at the Cinerama in Seattle a couple years back, and boy I forgot how much better the music and sound effects were in that movie with such a loud, heavy bass. It was definitely designed for more bass than you can get out of a standard home theater. Haters can hate the love story and the two main actors, but everyone will agree the movie still has an awesome soundtrack and great post-iceburg special effects.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:27 p.m. CST

    And for those claiming that post-production 3D is horrible...

    by Dreamwriter should watch Thor. That's the movie that proves if you really take your time and do it right, post-production 3D can work very well. Alice in Wonderland did a decent job of it too. It's only when you really cheap-out or rush it that it's crap, and you know what, I don't see James Cameron doing that.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:38 p.m. CST

    roger that

    by wwhite333

    This is a definite theater flick. The music and sound effects alone would be worth the trip. I agree that the love story is somewhat tired and incredibly by the book but those who think Cameron used to be some master with his baseline stories are misguided. T2 and Aliens are flawless, I agree. Modern Cameron haters seem to go back to these movies as some sort of sign that JC used to write these incredibly in depth Memento-esque screenplays. One is about a bad robot coming back through time to duke it out with a good robot, also sent back through time. Not really heady stuff folks. The other is about a bunch of G.I.'s who have to fight a bunch of aliens. Once more, not "Brick." Cameron applies a tried and true formula to film making: tell a simple enough story with universal characters and themes and infuse it with style, grace, epicality (that's a word now) and typically never before seen effects and set pieces that rock audiences minds.

  • May 19, 2011, 9:56 p.m. CST


    by wwhite333

    Agreed. Someone tells me not to do something enough times (don't smoke weed... don't shotgun beer... don't vote for McCain) or tells me someone is an awful author or filmmaker, chances are I'm going to end up not listening to them. Just human nature and there's clearly something about not obeying what others are preaching. On the flip side I can see how people likewise don't like something that the entire world is obsessed with. The only difference with these two POV's is that there is usually a good reason for something garnering critical acclaim and at least some reason for the masses enjoying it. Again this is not always the case, sometimes people, typically younger ones, simply lap something up because everyone else is doing so. Like armtv says the more you tell me Michael Bay sucks, the more I think I kinda like him. Actually he's pretty good, check that he's fucking great.

  • May 19, 2011, 10:28 p.m. CST

    That's a big redundant price to pay to see Kate's amazing Winslets.

    by HapaPapa72

    Convert From Dusk Till Dawn to 3D and THEN I'll buy a ticket.

  • May 19, 2011, 11:35 p.m. CST

    Titanic Sucks


    Sucks in 3d now

  • May 20, 2011, 12:13 a.m. CST

    Titanic news.....awsome, now we get to hear the

    by southafricanguy

    whining and bitching of dork man child syndrom afflicted nerds that worship at the alter of Devin Farce. God, is fandom still pissed off that a film not made for them became the most popular film in the world for a time? I guess so....cue lots of "titanic was shit" naseum etc... ad infinitum.....

  • May 20, 2011, 12:17 a.m. CST

    Titanic was nt my type of film, but regardless

    by southafricanguy

    it is a good film. Its simply a modern gone with the wind in the sense thats its really just an old fashioned Hollywood period romance...right down to the sometimes corny dialouge etc..... And you guys can piss your pants, and throw your toys out the cot all day does nt change the simple fact that Titanic got people to get out the house and go to the movies that had nt been to the cinemas in years. Everyone from my uncle to my grandmother went to the cinema to watch it and they never with many of the older generation they like westerns, period romances and the exact type of films that Hollywood does nt really make anymore ever since it started catering almost exclusively to fanboys, and teenagers....

  • May 20, 2011, 12:20 a.m. CST

    And considering that Cameron pulled the same

    by southafricanguy

    feat off twice in a row makes him one of the great populist directors right up there with Spielberg. Be a Devin Farce acolyte all you want (as in an arrogant, hipster, man child hypocrite) but the simple fact is that Cameron knows how to tap into the zeitgeist...and that is a rare skil.....

  • May 20, 2011, 12:25 a.m. CST

    For me personally I was dissapointed in Avatar

    by southafricanguy

    in that the story was such a overdone one, and that the narrative was fairly simplistic. But I loved the design and visuals of it (really looked like heavy metal magazine brought to life), basically I like the sci-fi universe Cameron created, now if he can just tell a great story in it..... Cameron owes us another pure action film ala Aliens and T2 imho. He basically hasnt done it since True Lies. I really hope that Avatar 2 will be a shift in genre much like Aliens and T2 were in the sense that it switches to being more of an action film.... So despite being dissapointed overall, I can see a huge amount of potential to what could be done with Avatar....fingersd crossed that the sequals deliver...

  • May 20, 2011, 12:36 a.m. CST

    I enjoyed the film.

    by dockealy

    Still think it's a fine flick. Big, old-school historical drama done well.

  • May 20, 2011, 1 a.m. CST

    Aliens was exciting


    Avatar was fucking BORING

  • May 20, 2011, 1:06 a.m. CST

    battleship potempkin 3d

    by Orion

  • May 20, 2011, 1:06 a.m. CST

    the apartment 3d

    by Orion

  • May 20, 2011, 1:07 a.m. CST

    yentil 3d

    by Orion

  • May 20, 2011, 1:07 a.m. CST

    my dinner with andre 3d

    by Orion

  • May 20, 2011, 1:08 a.m. CST

    friday the 13th in 3d 3d

    by Orion

  • May 20, 2011, 1:09 a.m. CST

    glengarry glenross 3d

    by Orion

    Fuck you thats my name

  • May 20, 2011, 1:09 a.m. CST

    lifeboat 3d

    by Orion

  • May 20, 2011, 1:11 a.m. CST

    schindlers list 3d

    by Orion

    Ok, im done

  • May 20, 2011, 1:13 a.m. CST

    remember when everyone predicted titanic would bomb?

    by Orion

  • May 20, 2011, 1:57 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    3D is not the same as stereoscopic vision.

  • May 20, 2011, 1:58 a.m. CST

    "one of my all time favorite flicks is Armageddon."

    by AsimovLives

    That makes you a moron. Sorry.

  • May 20, 2011, 2:01 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I didn't find AVATAR boring the first time i saw it. The second time, however... Believ eit or not, my favorite part of the movie is all the stuff that happens before we find the first na'vi. As soon the blue cat people enters the movie, however, the movie goes down for me. I really despise the blue cat buggers! I find them irritating beyond care.

  • May 20, 2011, 2:59 a.m. CST


    by TheComedian77

    Firstly, you cannot 'prove' an opinion! 'Stacking up' one against the other doesn't mean jack shit, except to the overopinionated idiot like you. Second, can you spell irony? If you had read my posts PROPERLY, you would realise I HAVE seen Titanic. You made an assumption; but then you are acting like an ass. I said I did not bother to watch Titanic AT THE CINEMA. I never said I hadn't seen it. But that's the problem with assumptions. But go ahead - prove to me that Avatar isn't an overcooked, overlong, pretentious and unoriginal piece of eye candy!

  • May 20, 2011, 3:05 a.m. CST

    thecomdian...uh...howe could he do that exactly?

    by southafricanguy

    since your comment is purely subjective? At the exact same time why dont you prove empiracally that what you say is true? Because you cant "prove" it either...

  • May 20, 2011, 3:12 a.m. CST


    by TheComedian77

    Heh. That's my point. He's the one claiming that it is provable. Apparently all you have to do is 'stack one movie up against the other' (rolls eyes). In other words it's "obvious" if you compare a 'good' movie to a 'bad' one.......he doesn't get the whole subjective thing. He get's to choose. I like Scott Pilgrim, therefore, I defend bad cinema. No-one ever told him that opinions are like assholes......... But Titanic fans seem to be like that. If you hate Titanic, you have no soul(!)

  • May 20, 2011, 3:12 a.m. CST

    Asi...hey dude, whats up? Long time no see, no

    by southafricanguy

    speak etc.... Well, as per the Na'vi, we will just have to agree to disagree on that one to an extent. I am not thrilled with their depiction as American Indians, but I like their design, and think Weta pulled them off damn well....I guesds it all depends on your personal views about the use of archetypes.....wahtever. I dont think there is any point going into it much. Opinion on Avatar is seriously polarized (which imho is a good thing) and it simply just floats your boat, or it does nt. For me Asi, I love Pulp sci-fi, and for all its flaws, Avatar was pure pulp in an old school way. There are a lot of things I would like to see improved or done differently in the sequals (and based on cameron's track record with sequals, I will still give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being), but as I have already said, I think its a potentially very cool sci-fi universe that a lot could be done with. Now its just a question of wether Cameron will do something worthy with it.....

  • May 20, 2011, 3:14 a.m. CST

    Anyway.....Asi, are you a Looney Tunes fan?

    by southafricanguy

  • May 20, 2011, 3:17 a.m. CST

    and yes, I am aware that I just went waaay off

    by southafricanguy


  • May 20, 2011, 4:44 a.m. CST


    by george


  • May 20, 2011, 6:01 a.m. CST

    3D IS ALL THE RAGE....

    by WilliamZabkaRox

    BECAUSE OF JAMES CAMERON. We have to forever blame for every movie being in 3D and trying to copy Avatar. As for Titanic in 3D...why? 3D in most movie these days make no sense. It was better used back in it's original days when stuff popped out of the screen at you. What in Titanic pops out of screen? Kate Winslet's nude scene in 3D might not be bad but i'm so tired of every single movie needing to be in 3D and so far 99% of them haven't really been praised at all like Avatar for their use of 3D...and even Avatar looked like a grainy mess when I saw it in 3D. It ruined the movie for me and I think it's better minus the 3D b.s.. 3D is a trend that needs to go back in the time capsule. I wonder if Cameron is going to go back and try and re-work virtual reality next.

  • May 20, 2011, 6:05 a.m. CST

    ...and for the record

    by WilliamZabkaRox

    I don't mind Titanic at all. It is a epic movie but it's popularity, Leo obsession, Celine Dion song make it far worse of a movie than people make it out to be. Leo and Kate Winslet are two of today's best actors/actreses. At least Billy Zane's career didn't skyrocket after Titanic.

  • May 20, 2011, 6:08 a.m. CST

    oh and...

    by WilliamZabkaRox

    I'd much rather Cameron save the Terminator franchise or give us True Lies 2. If I were Arnold, I would be on the phone right now with Cameron begging him to work with me again. Also if I were Arnold I wouldn't have banged the maid from Family Guy. YUCK!

  • How are you, Indded long time no see ya. What you have been up to, you rascal?

  • May 20, 2011, 7:01 a.m. CST

    thecomedian77, you can prove an opinion of they are probable

    by AsimovLives

    Let us start with the concept of conviction. If a conviction is an opinion, and if my conviction is that the Earthnis round, then my opinion onthe subject is provable. another provable opinion: It's my opinion that the plot of Abrams Trek depends too much on blind coincidences for it to work. I can prove that very easily just by using examples from the movie itself, of which none is more obvious then NuKirk meeting Pseudo-Original Spock in the ice cave. See? Make no mistake, many people's opinions are based on provable fact. You seem to come to your conclusions by going the reverse mode. You do not have an opinion and set to prove it. You see the evidence of things and then you form an opinion. Evidence precedes opinion, not the other way around.

  • May 20, 2011, 7:12 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    To answer your second question first, yes i am a fan of Looney Tunes, but mostly from their work in the 40s and 50s. Their later work doesn't appeal to me. You did say soemthing quite right about my raction about the Na'vis, and in which my reaction mostly goes agasint how they are depicted as archetypes. It's not that they are archetypes that upsets me. If that was so, i would hate most movies i like. No, the problem is exactly the depiction of the archetypes. And there is a strange bi-polarism about the Na'vis as depcited. We know they are extremely xenopohbic, because they attack humans on sight for the smallest of transgresssions. they cut out their relationship with the humans without even a why. The human scientists have to figure it all out. Now, if the Na'vis has been presentes as mysterious creatures always, and the only concetc would had been from afar, and the way the human characters related to them was from afar, without much direct contact, i wouldn't had a problem. The movie would be about the issue of two different cultures comunication when there's this huge gap between them. But that's not what AVATAR is. Avatar is Pocahontas in space. Well, if i wanted to watch a good Pocahontas movie, i have Terrence Malick's movie THE NEW WORLD, which actually mannages to present those topcis quite well through the device of TWO love stories. I don't berate Avatar for lack of ambition, because the movie is very ambitious indeed. But i think that Cameron could still had told an imediate story without making such weird decisions like this bi-polar depcition of the Na'Vis which paradoxaly he's trying to muilk all kinds of sympathy feelings for them. and yet, the more Cameron tries to make me feel sympathy for the Na'vi, the more i find them a bunch of obnoxious xenophobic -know-it-all irritating elves. and that they are very poor depcitions of an alien also doens't help. As for the technical excelency that went to their visual depiction, that's beyond discussion.

  • May 20, 2011, 7:15 a.m. CST

    Speaking of the convertion of Titanic to 3D...

    by AsimovLives

    ... i bet the computer nerds at the 3D convertion house are all trying to be the ones who will make the nude Kate Winslet scene be their assigment. "I have to do a 3D convertion of a scene with a nude Kate Winslet? Don't mind if i do, boss".

  • May 20, 2011, 7:28 a.m. CST


    by TheComedian77

    Come on man, how can you have a handle naming Asimov and say something so inane in another guys defence? A theory and a personal opinion are not the same! You don't theorise that 'this film is shit' do you? Therefore you can't prove it one way or another. Newton didn't have 'an opinion on gravity' did he?

  • May 20, 2011, 7:44 a.m. CST



    If they make Kate Winslet's yummy sweater meat 3D, it will be worth seeing. Otherwise....ehhhhh.

  • May 20, 2011, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Glengarry Glenross


    Is a MAN'S movie. If you don't like that movie, I am sure there is a Judy Garland festival at your local arthouse theater..

  • May 20, 2011, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Glengarry Glen or Glenda

    by Bumpasses Dawg

    Now THAT would be a MAN'S movie! Especially in 3-D. "First place? An angora sweater. Second place? A Playtex Living Bra. Third place? PULL THE STRING!!"

  • May 20, 2011, 8:24 a.m. CST

    James Cameron

    by scottybtrue

    is a genius! Right up there with Speilberg as my favorite directors of ALL time!

  • May 20, 2011, 8:41 a.m. CST

    Funniest scene in Titantic goes to...

    by Stalkeye

    ...the passengers falling off the ship while the trio of violinists are playing that "can-can"music. Although unintenional, the shit was funny in an insensitive kind of way. Although the Titantic was a good filmit's a bit overatted and certainly NOT one of cam's best. Same goes for True Lies.

  • May 20, 2011, 8:46 a.m. CST

    asimovlives they both give depth of perception

    by KilliK

    so yeah they are similar though not were saying?

  • May 20, 2011, 9:23 a.m. CST

    @gravy turd re: DiCaprio

    by Absent Nine Times

    I'm no fanboy of DiCaprio, but calling him a bad actor is just silly. If he isn't macho enough for a role, that is poor casting, not poor acting.

  • May 20, 2011, 9:56 a.m. CST see, this is why I like talking to you

    by southafricanguy

    even if we dont agree on things exactly, you always offer interesting view points. I get what you are saying about the Na'vi, and perhaps its true that Cameron should have presented them more mysteriously. As for the new world...uh I love Badlands and The thin red line (so im a fan of malick), but fuck me was the new world boring. I couldnt take any more of colin farrel wandering around and mumbling in an Irish Accent, beautifully shot, but duller than watching grass grow, and pretensious to the extereme for me.....We will simply have to strongly agree to completely disagree on that one.

  • May 20, 2011, 9:58 a.m. CST

    As for what I have been up to...ive just been

    by southafricanguy

    super busy, and frankly I got very burnt out on the TBs...just got tired of arguing with jackoffs that pass theri opinion off as fact etc.....but its all good. What about you Asi? What have you been up to?

  • May 20, 2011, 10 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Re-read what i wrote.

  • May 20, 2011, 10:01 a.m. CST

    I hear you about the old looney tunes stuff..still

    by southafricanguy

    the best. However, I dont know if you ever saw Tiny Toons or animaniacs.....modern, but very much in the spirit of the originals, and suprisingly close to them qaulity wise...Pity about the horrible films thought (Space Jam was indeed terrible), but I have a soft spot for Loonet tunes back in action, its flawed, but is probably still the best Loonet tunes film so far imho.....

  • May 20, 2011, 10:01 a.m. CST

    Glengarry Glenross in 3D

    by AsimovLives

    Major manly swearing in 3D.

  • May 20, 2011, 10:05 a.m. CST

    Also are indeed correct about Avatar

    by southafricanguy

    not lacking ambition....You really should check out the 1995 scriptment Asi...far more ambitious in scope and detail, actually the film was only about half of what was in that old scriptment. One last thing about Avatar Asi...i am curious (since I know you know your pulp sci-fi very well) what you think the Avatar sequals could or should be about? How do you think Cameron could improve on Avatar with them?

  • May 20, 2011, 10:06 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Similiar is not identical. You answered yourself. 3D is an illusion, it's trickery by making 2D look like 3D. Stereoscopic vision is really seeing in 3D. There is no way you can mistake a movie in 3D with how you see reality.

  • May 20, 2011, 10:24 a.m. CST

    For the last time, you wankers: Leonardio DiCaprio is a good actor.

    by AsimovLives

    So you guys lost a girlfriends because you caugh her masturbating in the shower screaming his name at the time when Titanic was all the rage. BIG FUCKING DEAL, GET OVER IT! It's not the dude's fault. Leonardo DiCaprio is a very good actor, but saying he's not just because you are envious of his good looks or whatever other such shallow ass reason, that's just stupid. Deal with it and get over it.

  • May 20, 2011, 10:31 a.m. CST


    by TheComedian77

    Yeah, I re-read what you wrote. Some peoples opinions are proveable if you interpret the word opinion in that way. I'm not trying to be funny, it's just that that AIN'T what the word opinion means. You and I share the opinion that DiCaprio is a good actor. That cannot be proved though. An opinion is generally held to be something one person believes in. It is not 'proveable'. A conviction and an opinion are two different things.

  • May 20, 2011, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Convition, Opinion


    From the dictionary... Conviction:the act of convincing a person of error or of compelling the admission of a truth. Opinion:a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. End of discussion.

  • May 20, 2011, 11:15 a.m. CST


    by wwhite333

    I take back what I said about the majority of posters on here being close minded, mean spirited and arrogant. The majority of your posts, Asimov, fall into those three categories bro. I'm a moron because I have a favorite movie you think sucks? At least I can admit I have favorites that are critically dumped on. As a true movie fan who watches everything in sight and goes back to re-watch those that have moved me in some way or another over and over again, I find no shame in admitting I love watching any movie, even bad ones. You constantly talk down to people as if your opinions are better than others and that elitist attitude that permeates through nearly all your posts, is quite annoying. Even when you try and "debate" and I use that term very loosely with you, Dicaprio's acting talent you once more shut down other peoples view that they simply don't think he's any good. I think he is terrific from This Boy's Life on, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go light someone else up because they don't view him as an actor as I do.

  • May 20, 2011, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Asi.....dont waste your time pointing out the

    by southafricanguy

    obvious that Leo is a good actor, its fashionable to hate him just as its fashionable to hate Titanic. And lets not even get started with the sad delusional assholes that resent Titanic's success and try to downplay it by saying stupid shit like it was only successful because "stupid girls and women went to go see it again and again" if girls and women are an invalid audience. By that same logic we can conclude that star wars was only successful becuase silly boys and juvenile men went to go see it again and again.... Nevermind the simple falsehood in that statement I have said, everyone I knew went to go watch it back in the day and at least really liked it (before the massive backlash started, and it became the cool thing to hate), people in my family that simply never go to the cinema went, ...and that alone was an achievement..... Im no fan of period romances, but I will not deny Titanic being a good film just because fanboys have trouble accepting that a film not made to appeal to their specific geek tastes became so massivley successful.....

  • Like hell you can't.

  • May 20, 2011, 11:43 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Armageddon is a terrible movie, and anybody can see why? Where should i begin to describe what is so fucking wrong with that terrible movie? In fact, terrible is not a sufficient word to describe it. I'm fluent in two different languages, my native portuguese and in english, and i don't have the vocabulary to come up with a word that is good enough to describe the terribleness of Armageddon. Maybe such a wrod only ecxists in teh german languag,e where they can put a whole concept in a single word that's a phrase long. The movie's failure starts right at the title itself. It's stupid and ignorant to call that movie Armageddon. If you do not know why, then go check what Armageddon actually means. It's the name OF A PLACE, not the name of an event. The movie fucks up right form the bat. Then there's the stupid lack of any kind of scientific accuracy at all. The only thingthe movie gets it right is that asteroids exists... and that's it. all the rest not only gets it wrong, but they didn't even mannage to get what an asteroid is right. It's a spectacular falure of the dumbest kind. The movie is photographed as if it's a perfume comemrcial. Maybe for some that crap looks pretty... if you haven't seen too many moveis before. The editing is beyond terrible. It's frame-fucking (a true derrogatory term used by Holywood editors to describe what Bay did) at it's worst. It's the type of editing that clueless hacks uses to make shit pretend to be exiting and action-like, when in fact it's just a bunch of boring crap coming just too fast. The story... what story? Should i even insult all othjer movies ever made by saying that Armageddon has a story. No, that mvoie has no story to skep of. All it has is a bunch of action crap badly linked to one another inbetween scenes of the most sugary melodramatic crap imaginable. There's no characters in the movie, only steretypes. Not archetypes, steretypes. The movie is filled with top actors, and it's their presence alone which migth mistake anybody that they are seeing characters onscreen. You, you are just seeing a parade of very talented and charismatic actors parading their charisma onscreen. There's nothing else. You think the movie's failurs end here no it doesn't. In all honesty, Armageddon is the worst movie i evert heard of. I have seen lots and lotsof terrible movies in my life, and none is worst then Armageddon. By far. I'm known by some in here for my relentless bashing of Abrams Trek. But that movie pales in comparison to the godawfullness that Armageddon is. that's not a prais eof Abrams Trek, but a testement to how crap the later is. As for tyour accusation of arrogance, i have sene that alot from people who likeand support terrible movies. It's the easy coup out accusation to make. god forbid you actually notice that you suport a terrible undefensable movie that is terrible by all standards by which a movie can be judged for. You want to understand better why the movie is bad? Check this out: And learn that it's not arrogance from others to point out the obvious for you. You only have yourself to blame if you like trash, you know?

  • May 20, 2011, 11:44 a.m. CST

    opinions on actors

    by wwhite333

    I thought A History of Violence was very good, not great, but very good. Mortensen typically elevates most films he is in with his tremendous subtlety - but that's beside the point. To point out how people CAN have a legitimate argument over the quality of a actor/actress' overall talent, look at William Hurt in that film. All the reviews raved about Hurt being this unhinged psychopath who was mesmerizing in his brief but substantial role. He was up for an Academy Award for his supporting turn and even bad reviews of the film seemed to highlight this climax performance as something that had to be seen to be believed. I felt awkward watching him ham it up in those 5-10 minutes of screen time. A supporting Oscar nom?? Really? He was so awful in Violence it looked like Hurt had had a lobotomy along the way. Hurt has had some great roles in the past, and overall I would say he was probably a great actor at one time. His performance was nearly laughable in those ending scenes and yet everyone seemed to think it was explosive. Just trying to point out how lots of people can love an actor or role and yet certain individuals have a hard time viewing it as even passable or decent.

  • If better supported, then yeah it is. This goes as true for me as for anybody else. Don't you just think that if just becaus you have an opinion that you are isempt from criticism and scrutiny. You having an opinion doesn't give you any special status. If you havean opinion, you better make sure you can back it up. Or else it's worth crap. Are there opinions which are better then others? Of course there are. This might bruise the ego of some, well, they better deal with it. Ego is no good defense of an opinion.

  • May 20, 2011, 11:53 a.m. CST


    by wwhite333

    Dude I literally don't care if you show me facts that Armageddon is FACTUALLY a bad movie. I don't care if it becomes banned for being so bad. I don't care if you think it's worse than every single movie ever produced. I will lose no sleep, and I will never, repeat NEVER, be ashamed that I love it. You give me links to to scientific sites to disprove it's science??? Do you really think I came out of that flick with a notepad in my hand writing down ideas to send to the government just in case we we're ever in that situation? Why does it seem like you need to prove to me that the movie is no good. That doesn't, and never will, change my enjoyment of it. By the way it's a movie and movies are made to entertain. I was entertained the first time and I'm still entertained by it now. That last sentence should basically end our conversation on the flick. Your not going to prove to me that I don't like something. And yes arrogance flows from your posts. Stop trying to prove to people what is right and wrong in the world of cinema based on your opinions. IT"S ALL PERSONAL TASTE.

  • May 20, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    If better supported, then yeah it is...

    by wwhite333

    For real guy? That's how you respond to that? If your opinion on a movie is better supported than mine, that means your opinion of taste or quality is the right one. Wow, that's incredibly misguided. If we we're talking about opinions on important things than I might tend to agree with you. If someone has a positive opinion on Nazi's for example and another has a negative view on that same group, sure opinions can turn more into a right and wrong answer. When it comes to movies, Broprah, there is no formula. It's entertainment pure and simple, and most rationale people don't care what the masses think, they are going to like a movie or not based on how it made them feel. I completely agree that if you are going to formulate an opinion in the real, adult world, then it's a worthless opinion if you don't back it up. This applies to society, religion, politics, etc. This does not apply to entertainment.

  • Then that's your problem and your problem only. And be prepared for the shitstorm that you will eventually and rightly receive everytime there will be a discussion about that movie. If you do not care, how care you to impose that others should? Quid pro quo, dude.

  • May 20, 2011, 12:18 p.m. CST


    by wwhite333

    It's clearly not getting through your pea brained mind. You go ahead and formulate any opinion you want on whatever you want, by all means. It's when you come back with links (really??) to try and tell me a movie is, as a matter of fact in your narrow minded view, bad, that I lose any interest in discussing a topic with you and actually any credibility that you may have had. Is it that difficult for you to grasp that some things that you like, I'm not going to see eye to eye with you on and likewise the other way around? And by the way I'm imposing nothing on anyone here. I'm only supporting my claims because you are trying to prove to me that something that entertains me is not entertaining. Do you see the problem your going to have in trying to prove me wrong. If you don't then you are a fool. It's not going to happen. I used Armageddon as an example that opinions and tastes don't have to match up with critical applause; I love it, the majority of people don't. I'm totally cool with that. You seem to have a problem with me liking a movie that you don't, and I just don't understand it. And the shitstorm that I will "rightly" receive?? You out of your mind. I've said it before I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about the movie. The only time I came to it's defense was when you began bashing me for liking a movie that you seem to think you can actually prove has not entertained me for years.

  • May 20, 2011, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Cameron's films make amazing "event" movies.

    by sweeneydave

    But it doesn't translate as well at home on DVD. I saw Titanic and Avatar multiple times in the theatre. But at home, I have trouble sitting through either of them even once.

  • May 20, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST


    by wwhite333

    Right dude. You have zero ego. Nope, telling people what is entertaining or not is not egotistical. Nope. You're right, telling someone what should entertain them or not is very open minded. For the last time. I'm not, nor have I yet on any of these posts, attempting to say that technically, artistically, or in any other way shape or form is Armageddon a good movie. I'm simply, and have been all along, saying it entertains the shit out of me. If you can't deal with that then I don't know what to tell you. I haven't tried to compare it to any other movie that may be deemed great or better than it. All I was saying was that everyone hates it, I agree. I love it. That is it. Someone had mentioned that total ticket sales or revenues meant nothing in terms of quality or personal opinion. And on the flip side simply because something hasn't sold well, that does not mean it is of poor quality. Why can't you understand any of this. I wasn't looking for an argument, simply a debate. Armageddon is not a good movie. That has yet to change the fact that i find it wildly entertaining.

  • May 20, 2011, 1:07 p.m. CST


    by sweeneydave

    I feel like I interrupted an arguement that was going on NOT about Titanic...

  • May 20, 2011, 1:14 p.m. CST

    No worries

    by wwhite333

    Wasn't an argument, just debating. Someone else had mentioned that the 3D in Avatar was somewhat of a hindrance for their viewing experience in the theater and that at home they enjoyed Avatar more. Not sure where I stand. I loved the 3D, as it was the first use of the tech that was done well. I also was a little let down when I watched it on my tv on dvd for the first time but I don't have a great tv and the screen size was an issue. Then I watched it again on a very good tv and I was again blown away. Without the 3D it seems you (at least me) focus more on the details rather than the scope. I guess I just love the movie and am happy to see it in the theater or at home. Both arguments are valid.

  • May 20, 2011, 1:29 p.m. CST

    The 3D of Avatar

    by AsimovLives

    THe 3D of Avatar is very good. It's a standard by which all other 3D moves will and should be judged. Cameron's use of it was even subtle and non-intrusive. He did it very well. And i ended the movie with a migrane and eye-sore. The main reason is that the movie is just very long, too long to be shown in 3D. And i just might be one of those who just can't stand 3D for a long time. Eventually i get migranes and eye-sore. I hadno problem with the 3D of TRON LEGACY, but that movie was far shorter then Avatar, so it didn't had enough time to mess with me. And still, my experience with 3D is not exactly a positive one. I avoided watching THOR in 3D exactly because by now #d stoped being a novelty and a casue for watching a movie,and now i see it more as a gimmick. I'm fed up with it. Which is a bit unfortunate, since some of the movies i want to see in the near future are 3D movies, like Ridley Scott's PROMETHEUS. I'm thankfull that some directros of big spectacle movies like Christopher Nolan ar enot taking to the 3D craze and are just making movies the normal way. Unless he really makes TDKR in Imax, as he said he wanted to.

  • May 20, 2011, 1:39 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Whe i watched AVATAR for the second time it was on a home video system, with good sound and in blu-ray on a big telly. And i was bored to tears. That had nothing to do with the fact that the movie looks less spectacular in home video. More to do with the movie itself. I enjoyed the movie quite well when i first saw it (exclusing the migrane), but the second time it was just a "once was good enough for me, thank you very much" type of deal. There was nothing at a second viewing that made me feel enriched by the movie, in fact the opposite effect happened, i became even more aware of the movie faults. I like Avatar, i think it's good movie, but i consider it a pretty flawed movie. But i have to disagree with you that Cameron's mvoies don't translate well to home video. I have seen TERMINATOR 2 many times on a small TV and yet the movie always looks great and epic to me, it still fells as big as wheni saw it inthe theaters back in the day. Ditto to The Abyss and Aliens. I think Cameron's movies look nicely regardless if you watch them in a theater or a home video system. Titanic too. If there's filmmakers whose mvoies look like the total crap they are and fail miserably at a home video system are the ones made by Micahel Bay or JJ Abrams. The former without the big epic scope of a theater movie just look like a bunch of silly shit you can barely compreend what is going on. The later makes all his movies look like TV shows, in the worst definition of the word. In that regard, Cameron is like Ridley Scott, Stanley Kubrick, David Fincher, Brian De Palma, Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan, even if their movies are seen in a home video system, they still retain their epic quality. Proof, if need be, of their filmmaking talent. And iknow of a movie which looks and fells total fucking epic even though it's a low budget movie and i only seen it in a small TV on a home video: VALHALLA RISING. That movie is just... AHHHAAAAHAHA!!!

  • May 20, 2011, 1:56 p.m. CST

    I'm not usually a fan of 3D, but I found myself

    by sweeneydave

    totally wrapped up in the 3D of Avatar. Maybe that's why it didn't translate as well at home. On the other hand, I also LOVED the 3D of Tron: Legacy and I still loved it at home (but I have to turn all the lights off). I guess you just have to make sure you have more than just gimmicks. Gimmicks should be the icing on the cake and nothing more. The Dark Knight was an amazing film all around. But watch it in Imax and it's even more thrilling.

  • May 20, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST

    I was hoping to get Valhalla Rising on Netflix today

    by sweeneydave

    but I got it mixed up with Black Death.

  • May 20, 2011, 2:13 p.m. CST


    by TheUmpireStrokesBach

    VALHALLA RISING is available to stream on Netflix as well. Or were you particularly wanting to see it on Blu-ray?

  • May 20, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    BLACK DEATH is a rpetty good movie too, you shouldn't lament. It' even offer food for thoughts. And it has David Warner, never a bad thing. But VALHALLA RISING is pure awesomeness, as far i'm concerned. Not an easy movie to watch, though. The movie might proved to be different then you thought it would.

  • May 20, 2011, 2:56 p.m. CST

    The DVD image quality of VALHALA RISING is fantastic

    by AsimovLives

    It almost matches blu-ray in image quality. That movie has to be one of the most gorgeaus and well photographed movie i ever seen in my whole life. Tall words from me who is a total fanatic about Blade Runner and 2001 and who think Barry Lyndon is the most beautiful movie ever.

  • May 20, 2011, 3:04 p.m. CST

    I liked this movie quite a bit, always have

    by Jaka

    So, yeah, count me in. I'd quite like to see it on the big screen again to see if it still has the same affect on me it had 15 years ago. 3D? If it was anyone else I'd be against it. But its Cameron, working on his own film. So, sure. Why not? I would have been trying to see it on our local IMAX screen anyway, so the extra cost would have existed regardless of the 3D up-charge. <p> As far as why I think it could be cool, it sure ain't Kate's titties. I love Kate Winslett. I'm a devout following of her career since Heavenly Creatures. But I don't think her titties are anything to write home about. The fact that she takes them out so often with so much confidence is pretty bad ass, but they aren't anything special on their own (that real woman figure, though... yeah, that I like). Aaaaanyway. More than her titties or the closing action sequences, I think it could be really cool to see all the underwater shots of the shit in modern times and all the interior shots in the flashbacks in 3D. I'm thinking particularly of things like the famous stairwell shots, the long hallway shots, the lower deck dancing scene. My brain can imagine those shots looking really cool with some slight 3D tweaking.

  • May 20, 2011, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Loved Avatar in 3D in the theater...

    by Jaka

    ...but don't love it as much in 3D at home. At home it actually looks MUCH better watching it in 2D using the pre-programmed "Brilliant" color setting (on Blu-Ray). Makes it look completely different than my theater experience memories. So much so that I actually prefer watching it that way now.

  • May 20, 2011, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Isn't Valhala Rising available on Netflix instant streaming?

    by Stalkeye

    It's been sitting in my queue for quite sometime. Unfortunately, I never got the chance to watch the film as I have soo many Movies at my disposal reserved for that "Rainy Day". i have to make note of finally getting around to it unless I saw The Devil is now available on 'flix. Asi, you might be on to something (in regards to VH) since during my recent visit to Mum's, I saw the title in her netflix queue as well. BTW fair crituque about Avatar and I'm sure you're gonna catch hell from our friend Killik for that post. (0:'

  • However, i also can't hep notice that TITANIC is not exactly a flawed masterpiece either. THe movie has far less rewatchability then someprevious Cameron's movies. In fact, since T2, his movies have lost that rewatchability quality they all used to had. I never get tird of rewatching THE TERMINATOR, ALIENS, THE ABYSS (yeah, motherfuckers) and T2. But not so much with TRUE LIES, TITANIC and now AVATAR. I have seen Titanic quite often enough for me already. I own the DVD, but nowdays if i want to rewatch it, it has to be with the audio comentary on, so i can get distracted by the words of the people involved in it. Otherwise, there's little for me to revisit. But I still say thjat the people who think that it's a bad movie are full of shit.

  • May 20, 2011, 3:11 p.m. CST

    *follower *ship siiiiiigh

    by Jaka

    Its karma. Happens every time I give Harry shit about his whacked-out writing "style".

  • Even The star wars series may have more potentual for a 3D conversion.(I can justify the excuse of space dogfights and lightsaber duels over a sinking ship anyday.) To watch a Drama, one has to be completely immeresed meaning, not to get sidetracked by eye poppong effects. And for the record, I would have enjoyed Thor more had it not been for the tacked on 3D effects. amirite?

  • May 20, 2011, 3:42 p.m. CST

    stalkeye, like I said above (or tried to)

    by Jaka

    Based on my experience with Cameron's use of 3D in Avatar, I can picture a lot of scenes in Titanic in my head that might look very cool with the same treatment. I could be wrong, but I think it might work.

  • May 20, 2011, 3:45 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    that's why i told you, i recomended you to see THOR in 2D digital. Yeah, the movie is so much better that way. It's a pity you know have a poor opinion of a good movie because you had the misfortune to watch it in 3D.

  • May 20, 2011, 6:08 p.m. CST

    i cant stand 3d...

    by emeraldboy

    especially real 3d.....ugh...

  • May 20, 2011, 9:20 p.m. CST

    Great Actors, but who cares about 3d

    by double_l88

    It's not a bad movie, but I don't won't to see it in 3d. Leonardo and Winslet are as good as it gets, but seeing it normal is good enough.

  • May 21, 2011, 8:01 a.m. CST

    "but seeing it normal is good enough" Absolutly.

    by AsimovLives