Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:20 AM ET, 10/ 1/2010

'Titanic' to get 3-D re-release

By Jen Chaney

Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet: Their hearts will go on ... in 3D. (Paramount Via AP)

"Titanic" -- like the "Star Wars" movies, as we learned just two days ago -- is definitely getting the 3-D treatment.

The love-on-a-doomed-ocean liner movie is now officially scheduled to be converted to 3-D in time for a 2012 theatrical re-release, according to an item in The Hollywood Reporter. And Paramount is looking to roll out their James Cameron blockbuster -- now the second highest grossing film of all time, right behind Cameron's "Avatar" -- into theaters around the same that Darth Vader and Co. are scheduled to make their triumphant return: between February and April of 2012.

Right away, some may see an irony in Cameron converting one of his own movies to 3-D when he's criticized the practice before. (He has also, however, been saying this would happen with "Titanic" for quite some time.) Others may wonder if this is just the -- don't say it ... don't say it ... shoot, can't resist saying it -- tip of the iceberg when it comes to issuing movies again and making us all wear 3-D glasses to watch them.

What's next? "The Wizard of Oz 3-D"? "Back to the Future 3-D"? "Sex, Lies and Videotape: 3-D"? Is it all getting to be a bit much? Maybe. Then again, I've always longed to see DiCaprio shout "I'm king of the world!" while seemingly hovering a few inches from the tip of my nose.

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

By Jen Chaney  | October 1, 2010; 11:20 AM ET
Categories:  Movies, Pop Culture  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rumor Mill: Did Oksana Grigorieva accuse ex of abuse, too?
Next: Fashion Statement: Tyra Banks, caught in her own web

Comments

Stop it right now. Just because you CAN rerelease a movie in 3D does not mean you should. This is just annoying at this point. Not every movie needs to be redone in 3D.

Heaven forbid that Hollywood just admit "Yeah, it's not the technology it's the higher 3D ticket prices." Then someone can do a real 3D movie "The Quest for More Money"

Or here is a really novel idea. Create NEW movies with NEW ideas that may be in 3D or may not, depending on if the story would be better told that way. But that will never happen.

Wow, I am cranky for a Friday. I think I need to adjourn to the Tiki Bar early.

Posted by: epjd | October 1, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

If they can redo Titanic to make it 3D, why can't they redo it to make it, you know, good?

ep, I'll see you in the bar shortly. First, though, I've got to get my fix of the vegetarian souvlaki from The Arkadia House.

Posted by: byoolin1 | October 1, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Stop it right now. Just because you CAN rerelease a movie in 3D does not mean you should. This is just annoying at this point. Not every movie needs to be redone in 3D.

Heaven forbid that Hollywood just admit "Yeah, it's not the technology it's the higher 3D ticket prices." Then someone can do a real 3D movie "The Quest for More Money"

Or here is a really novel idea. Create NEW movies with NEW ideas that may be in 3D or may not, depending on if the story would be better told that way. But that will never happen.

Wow, I am cranky for a Friday. I think I need to adjourn to the Tiki Bar early.

Posted by: epjd | October 1, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Since the "convert 2D movies to 3D" trend clearly needs to run aground somewhere, why not on Titanic?

Ep and Byoolin, I'm right behind ya.

Posted by: northgs | October 1, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I wish Cameron would edit out that last hour of "JACK! JACK! ROSE! ROSE!" But even if if he did, I'd probably STILL hate the movie.

Posted by: kbockl | October 1, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Well, since much of it was CGI, the shots of ship and iceberg should be easy to 'reshoot' in 3-d. Editing the close-up, or other shots with people, is very, very difficult and usually very, very badly done.

Posted by: wiredog | October 1, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Oy vey.

Not necessary is NOT in Hollywood's vocab. Especially not in Lucas or Cameron's.

What's sad is there are people out there that are thrilled with this news & can't wait to see it.

I didn't see it in 2-D, don't plan on seeing it in 3-D.

Posted by: wadejg | October 1, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm excited at the prospect of seeing Kate Winslet's naked curves in 3-D. Should I save a couple of seats for Dorkus and Byoolin?

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | October 1, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm excited at the prospect of seeing Kate Winslet's naked curves in 3-D. Should I save a couple of seats for Dorkus and Byoolin?

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | October 1, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Sas, let me first say how nice it is to see you around again.

That said, I think if it's going to be you, me, and Dorkus Maximus watching "Kate Winslet's naked curves in 3-D," maybe we should screen it in an appropriate venue, such as the Paradise Theatre on Bloor St.

The projectionist can just put the relevant bits on a loop...

Posted by: byoolin1 | October 1, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Byoo', the Paradise closed in 2006. I think we'll have to make do with a back room here:

http://condomshack.com/shop/index.php

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | October 1, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Gee, thanks, Sas. Think of all your buddies next time, eh!

Posted by: elias_howe | October 1, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

What damn theatre am I thinking of then? South side of Bloor, near Honest Ed's? (The last time I walked by it - in March, I think, I passed a guy who'd just exited and his zipper was down. Maybe Titanic 3D was already playing, even then.)

The Condom Shack is fun, but for some reason The Kid always demurs when I ask her if we should go inside.

Posted by: byoolin1 | October 1, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company