Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel - Page 123

Moonliner · 12-29-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'd like to see Titanic again on the big screen, too. But I don't want to see it in 3-D. And I hate seeing it with the great scene in the sinking dining room missing, which I can only do at home.

I don't watch Titanic much because it's really a pretty lame made-up passenger story, which bugs because there were so many really good real passenger and crew stories to tell. I can stomach its corniness only if I think of it as a melodrama in the style of entertainments popular at the time of the Titanic. Which is not much.

I've never seen Titanic. I was planning on it now that the mooncave is complete. I was surprised to find it is not on bluray yet.

katiesue · 12-29-2011, 07:01 PM

I thought Titanic sucked. It was so long and incredibly boring I was praying for the ship to go down and take them all with it.

Ghoulish Delight · 12-30-2011, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katiesue

I thought Titanic sucked. It was so long and incredibly boring I was praying for the ship to go down and take them all with it.

And it was really difficult for me to feel tension during the many, "OMG, Rose is in danger, will she make it out?!" scenes when it was old Rose telling the story.

innerSpaceman · 12-30-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And it was really difficult for me to feel tension during the many, "OMG, Rose is in danger, will she make it out?!" scenes when it was old Rose telling the story.

Kind of ironic, considering nothing in the movie should have suspense - ya know, being that it's pretty well known the ship sinks. Heheh.

Actually, in the far better Titanic movie, A Night to Remember, it's absolutely amazing how much suspense was created from The Californian situation (completely left out of the Cameron film). You practically had to restrain yourself from yelling at the screen, even though you knew darn well the Californian never comes to Titanic's rescue. That kind of thing, where the outcome is known, but suspense is raised nonetheless, is brilliant filmmaking.

The Cameron film is not brilliant filmmaking - but it is visually striking.

Alex · 12-30-2011, 12:19 PM

Well, I liked it as a massive display of cinematic spectacle. Which is why I haven't seen it since.

JWBear · 12-30-2011, 12:30 PM

It's a much better movie if you fast-forward through the Rose and Jack scenes.

Strangler Lewis · 12-30-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

It's a much better movie if you fast-forward through the Rose and Jack scenes.

I disagree. In fact, the only scene I'm interested in seeing in 3D is a Rose and Jack scene.

katiesue · 12-30-2011, 12:53 PM

We had it on video (yes that long ago) and it got to the end of the first tape and I thought good lord there's a whole other tape left I may slit my wrists.

Alex · 12-30-2011, 01:09 PM

One other thing I like about Titanic is it is like Reagan in 1984. Nobody voted Reagan and apparently nobody liked Titanic.

flippyshark · 12-30-2011, 03:47 PM

To hell with Titanic.

A Night To Remember (1958) remains the best movie on that topic.

In front of Tintin, I saw the trailer for Titanic 3D, and to my eye, the people were not very "well-rounded" but tended toward the flat, planar look of lesser quality post-conversion. (Some conversions have been pretty good - some, like Clash of the Titans, have been legendarily lousy.)

The best quality 3D experience I've had in some time was in my own home. (I have a "passive" 3D HDTV set from Vizio, and it's pretty great, especially for the price.) Last night I watched Carmen, captured live at London's Royal Hall, and I loved it. The high-def 3-D provided what the producers called a "shifting best seat in the house" effect. During duets, especially, the performers looked like living holograms being beamed into my living room (without the George Lucas-y static). It was a perfect illustration of the real difference between a true stereoscopic illusion, and the third-rate cheat of post-production 3D conversion. Plus, it was a really good performance. (I always forget how much I enjoy Carmen until I revisit it.)

Ever since I got my swell HDTV, I've amassed 12 3D Blu-rays, and am hungry for more, especially those that boast true stereo. The home 3D experience, for me, far surpasses the best theatrical 3D I've yet come across.

Most dazzling 3D eye candy ever? Rio!

12-29-2011, 07:01 PM	#2
katiesue Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,678	I thought Titanic sucked. It was so long and incredibly boring I was praying for the ship to go down and take them all with it. __________________ My life is so exciting I can hardly stand it.
	Submit to Quotes

12-30-2011, 12:19 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Well, I liked it as a massive display of cinematic spectacle. Which is why I haven't seen it since.
	Submit to Quotes

12-30-2011, 12:30 PM	#6
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	It's a much better movie if you fast-forward through the Rose and Jack scenes. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

12-30-2011, 12:53 PM	#8
katiesue Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,678	We had it on video (yes that long ago) and it got to the end of the first tape and I thought good lord there's a whole other tape left I may slit my wrists. __________________ My life is so exciting I can hardly stand it.
	Submit to Quotes

12-30-2011, 01:09 PM	#9
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	One other thing I like about Titanic is it is like Reagan in 1984. Nobody voted Reagan and apparently nobody liked Titanic.
	Submit to Quotes

12-30-2011, 03:47 PM	#10
flippyshark Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 2,852	To hell with Titanic. A Night To Remember (1958) remains the best movie on that topic. In front of Tintin, I saw the trailer for Titanic 3D, and to my eye, the people were not very "well-rounded" but tended toward the flat, planar look of lesser quality post-conversion. (Some conversions have been pretty good - some, like Clash of the Titans, have been legendarily lousy.) The best quality 3D experience I've had in some time was in my own home. (I have a "passive" 3D HDTV set from Vizio, and it's pretty great, especially for the price.) Last night I watched Carmen, captured live at London's Royal Hall, and I loved it. The high-def 3-D provided what the producers called a "shifting best seat in the house" effect. During duets, especially, the performers looked like living holograms being beamed into my living room (without the George Lucas-y static). It was a perfect illustration of the real difference between a true stereoscopic illusion, and the third-rate cheat of post-production 3D conversion. Plus, it was a really good performance. (I always forget how much I enjoy Carmen until I revisit it.) Ever since I got my swell HDTV, I've amassed 12 3D Blu-rays, and am hungry for more, especially those that boast true stereo. The home 3D experience, for me, far surpasses the best theatrical 3D I've yet come across. Most dazzling 3D eye candy ever? Rio!
	Submit to Quotes