Titanic was one of the most expensive movies ever made. It involved an enormous ship and a lot of CGI rendering. It also had some great actors. When the chance came to see the movie in theaters again (where I had previously only seen it on a TV), I decided that just once, 3D would be worth it (I generally despise that gimmick). But alas I was wrong. Compared to my old VHS copy it was much better in terms of sound and picture quality. But, the 3D itself added nothing, in those special moments it’s look wasn’t improved at all.
I am not a fan of 3D. I don’t think it adds anything to a film and it is quite irritating. Watching through those new style 3D glasses is like watching a movie through a View-Master. While I enjoyed that toy as a kid, it’s not as fun for 3 ½ hours. I wished I were at home watching it so I could fast forward. I would have left, but they charged us insanely because of the stupid glasses. And also no matter what I’m charged I never walk out of a theater….
The first 3D movie I ever saw as a kid was Spy Kids 3. That movie used the 3D gimmick to its fullest extent. Multiple times a character’s arm or random objects were flying out of the screen and it was the coolest 90 minutes of my 11 year old life. It is also only one of 3 movies I have ever seen in 3D, and back then I actually thought that concept was cool. I saw both of James Cameron’s babies, Avatar and Titanic, in 3D. And although he knows how to make a visually spectacular film, his money grubbing fingers need to stay away from 3D.
I feel if you are going to use a gimmick like 3D, you should REALLY use it. Take a page out of the Spy Kids book and do silly things. If you aren’t into that, then here’s an idea, don’t do 3D at all. Today’s idea of what 3D should be is the most pointless thing I have ever seen. The 90’s technology that made Titanic’s special effects, looks even more fake now with the 3D effect. For most of the movie it was pretty obvious we were staring at green screen skies and water.
There were parts in the film where I jokingly reached out to grab the things in the film that came out of the screen, so there were a few moments like that. But I was disappointed that the iceberg wasn’t more impressive in this 3D adaptation, even with my belief that 3D doesn’t add anything. Apparently Kate Winslet made a comment that she wasn’t sure how she felt about being naked in 3D. Before seeing the movie I knew that scene wouldn’t come out at us. If indeed her breasts were more defined because of the effects, they would have needed to change the background music if you know what I mean, because that would have been a completely different mood.
I’ve only seen this film a few times, but I remember all the crucial moments (there are a lot of them). But I don’t remember the contrasting clip of the smoking room with all the richies while Jack and Rose were dancing irish jigs in the ship’s basement. Nor do I remember Hockley leaving the child (that he saved for his own selfish ends), to attend to another boat (once again for his own selfish end I assume). I also think there were some shots we could have lived with out. Honestly how many times did we need to see somebody slide down the boat deck or see a rich snob ask for overly attentive service during a clearly stressful time.
When this movie came out I was 5. I have watched it a couple times over the years since then, and each time I notice something I didn’t before. As I got older I obviously realized that Rose and Jack weren’t naked in the car because it was hot in there. I noticed this time that there were hints that Rose and Hockley’s loveless engagement might have actually included sex, or attempted sex on Hockley’s part (more likely the latter). I was floored, how had I not noticed this? The hints were: Hockley gives her the necklace, he suggestively asks her to give her “heart to him.” Also after her night among the drunken below deck dwellers, he tells her he expected her to come to him that night. And when he gets mad at her during that talk he refers to her as his wife in practice if not by law, and that there is a certain way a woman must honor her husband. This gnawed at me so I checked my copy of the movie to see if those moments were in there or if they had been added for the 3D version. And….they were! As were the other small clips that I swore were new. I’m honestly embarrassed that I never noticed these things. And back when I thought they were new clips, I personally felt we didn’t need them. The Rose/Hockley loveless sex sub plot was interesting, but unnecessary because I think it would be better that Rose never obliged him since she always brushed him off in every other avenue.
While I firmly believe that the 3D addition to this film was pointless, everything else about the quality was good. Also, bringing a 15 year old mega film back to the big screen was a great idea. There are other films from the past like 2001: A Space Odyssey or something like the Godfather films (1 and 2 only!) that would be perfect to view on the big screen again, a fine way to introduce younger people to older classics, and would be great money grabbing opportunities. But, and this isn’t a suggestion it is flat out begging, IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE IN 3D! I PUT THIS IN CAPS, SO NO MOVIE BIG WIG WHO READS THIS CAN CLAIM THEY DIDN’T SEE IT!
At first I thought Titanic 3D was a waste of my time no debate. But after I posted this review the first time, I dug out my old VHS copy and searched for the places that surprised me. Being that my VHS copy is in fact old, the sound has worn out and the picture isn’t as vibrant as the new version. While the sound is obvious, if I hadn’t just watched Titanic remastered in theaters would I have even noticed the inferior picture quality of the 1997 version? Quite possibly investing in a remastered DVD copy of this would have suited me fine and I wouldn’t have needed to see it in theaters.