Will TITANIC Collide With 3D? What About Other Mega-Blockbusters?

by     Posted 4 years, 335 days ago

slice_titanic_movie_image_leonardo_dicaprio_kate_winslet_01.jpg

The up and coming rereleases of “Toy Story” 1 and 2 in the 3-D format have the industry abuzz in regards to the potential of hitting up popular library titles of the different studios to also give the 3-D treatment.  According to The Hollywood Reporter, Lightstorm Entertainment is claiming that a 3-D release of the world’s most successful box-office film “Titanic” is itself less than a year away.  With that in mind, the eventual consideration of your favorite mega-action blockbusters to get revisited seems more of a forecast now than just wishful thinking.  Click the jump to daydream about Rivendell, the Death Star, and/or Keanu Reeves in the third dimension.

This news in regards to “Titanic,” while huge in its own right (how much bigger can you get than the most successful box-office draw in film history?), gets one excited more about the potential of other releases than it does to revisit the waterworks (literal and metaphorical) at the hands of seeing Leonardo DiCaprio sink into the abyss.  Imagine experiencing the final Death Star sequence from “Star Wars” in 3-D; or the Balrog chase in Moria from “Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” and the opening sequence of “The Two Towers.”  Even more so, how about the taking of Zion in “Matrix: Revolutions” (maybe you’ll actually like the film now).  One could even think back on what Stanley Kubrick may have wanted to do with 3-D for “2001: A Space Odyssey,” if anything at all. The stargate sequence, while already iconic, could be one of the most transporting experiences one could have even outside of the film medium.

That does bring up a further question, though, and that’s whether or not the consideration of the filmmakers would be a factor.  Maybe certain filmmakers wouldn’t want their films released in 3-D, or maybe they’re not alive, like Kubrick, to give a hint one way or the other.  While the thought of seeing the aforementioned “2001: A Space Odyssey” or Victor Fleming’s “The Wizard of Oz” in 3-D I’ll admit has me salivating, a part of me would wonder whether that’s how I was supposed to see it.  That being said, with many modern filmmakers, such as James Cameron and Robert Zemeckis, themselves being fans of the format it’s not likely the revisiting of library titles would be completely shunned by the directors.

For now, though, with the popularity of 3-D in its infancy, and home theater not yet able to accommodate it these questions and dreams are still in the future; just maybe not the so-distant one.

[THR]

star_wars_death_star_explodes_001.jpg




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • Ryan O’Brien

    Jurassic Park! When they are running from the flock of dinosaurs the herd could run right past the audience!

  • Ryan O’Brien

    Jurassic Park! When they are running from the flock of dinosaurs the herd could run right past the audience!

  • Adam Charles

    Speaking of Spielberg I was going to mention, initially, “Saving Private Ryan.” However, I backtracked when I realized that there are probably more pleasant 3-D experiences than being immersed in D-Day.

    “Lawrence of Arabia” on the other hand……

  • Adam Charles

    Speaking of Spielberg I was going to mention, initially, “Saving Private Ryan.” However, I backtracked when I realized that there are probably more pleasant 3-D experiences than being immersed in D-Day.

    “Lawrence of Arabia” on the other hand……

  • Scott Nye

    3Difying films is no different than colorizing black and white films or making widescreen versions of full frame movies (or vice versa). If the format is going to be taken seriously (and right now, it’s not in any way), it has to be because people made the choice for 3D for artistic reasons, not to “freshen up” an older movie. If you’re not already transported by 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, I’m afraid there’s no saving you. And seriously, if people are going to get on Lucas’ case for the Special Editions, there’s really no reason they should cut him, or any other filmmaker, any slack in this regard.

    For the record, that Zion sequence in MATRIX REVOLUTIONS made that movie for me. I was absolutely stunned when I saw that in the theater.

  • Scott Nye

    3Difying films is no different than colorizing black and white films or making widescreen versions of full frame movies (or vice versa). If the format is going to be taken seriously (and right now, it’s not in any way), it has to be because people made the choice for 3D for artistic reasons, not to “freshen up” an older movie. If you’re not already transported by 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, I’m afraid there’s no saving you. And seriously, if people are going to get on Lucas’ case for the Special Editions, there’s really no reason they should cut him, or any other filmmaker, any slack in this regard.

    For the record, that Zion sequence in MATRIX REVOLUTIONS made that movie for me. I was absolutely stunned when I saw that in the theater.

  • Adam Charles

    Actually, it is different than colorizing black and white films or changing the aspect ratio (depending on the film you’re talking about) in that the director chose not to shoot in color, or 2.35:1. 3-D wasn’t an option in the ’60s so Kubrick didn’t choose to not use it, he couldn’t have used it even if he wanted to. In interviews with Arthur C. Clarke regarding 2001 he stated that Kubrick’s real purpose for doing the film was to create an experience, and 3-D can highten an experience.

    I don’t think it needs to be an artistic decision per se. Some films just play better in 3-D, like “Beowulf”.

    I’m not saying that every film should use it, it should be the filmmaker’s decision if it should be used. I don’t think anyone is taking 3-D seriously because it’s still relatively new in terms of its popularity, not because it hasn’t been used “artistically.”

    And, for the record, I agree about the Zion scene in Revolutions. That being said, Wachowskis permitting I’d like to see what it would/could look like in 3-D.

  • Adam Charles

    Actually, it is different than colorizing black and white films or changing the aspect ratio (depending on the film you’re talking about) in that the director chose not to shoot in color, or 2.35:1. 3-D wasn’t an option in the ’60s so Kubrick didn’t choose to not use it, he couldn’t have used it even if he wanted to. In interviews with Arthur C. Clarke regarding 2001 he stated that Kubrick’s real purpose for doing the film was to create an experience, and 3-D can highten an experience.

    I don’t think it needs to be an artistic decision per se. Some films just play better in 3-D, like “Beowulf”.

    I’m not saying that every film should use it, it should be the filmmaker’s decision if it should be used. I don’t think anyone is taking 3-D seriously because it’s still relatively new in terms of its popularity, not because it hasn’t been used “artistically.”

    And, for the record, I agree about the Zion scene in Revolutions. That being said, Wachowskis permitting I’d like to see what it would/could look like in 3-D.

  • Scott Nye

    Well, color wasn’t always an option. Sure, it’s been around since 1938, 1939, but economically it didn’t make sense for most movies until the late 1960s, and since that point it’s been the standard. We’ll never know how many directors would have rather made their films in color in the golden age or black and white in the New Hollywood era and beyond. Similarly, widescreen (anamorphic or otherwise) wasn’t an option until the 1950s, and became practically standardized later that decade and into the 60s. How many filmmakers would have used it before, and how many now would rather shoot in full frame, but can’t because of exhibition limitations and audience expectations? Even Kubrick had to mat down to 1.85 with his last few films.

    The point is, directors are always limited by their technological limitations; that’s life. I have no doubt Cameron would have made TITANIC in 3D if it had been an option, just as I have no doubt Lucas would have made the STAR WARS films closer to the Special Editions if CGI had been an option. Doesn’t make the decision to go back and reconfigure it the right thing to do.

  • Scott Nye

    Well, color wasn’t always an option. Sure, it’s been around since 1938, 1939, but economically it didn’t make sense for most movies until the late 1960s, and since that point it’s been the standard. We’ll never know how many directors would have rather made their films in color in the golden age or black and white in the New Hollywood era and beyond. Similarly, widescreen (anamorphic or otherwise) wasn’t an option until the 1950s, and became practically standardized later that decade and into the 60s. How many filmmakers would have used it before, and how many now would rather shoot in full frame, but can’t because of exhibition limitations and audience expectations? Even Kubrick had to mat down to 1.85 with his last few films.

    The point is, directors are always limited by their technological limitations; that’s life. I have no doubt Cameron would have made TITANIC in 3D if it had been an option, just as I have no doubt Lucas would have made the STAR WARS films closer to the Special Editions if CGI had been an option. Doesn’t make the decision to go back and reconfigure it the right thing to do.

Click Here