Y. S. Rice here, and no - I have not somehow managed to get into some top-secret pre-pre-release to the new Titanic re-release coming out next spring, IN 3D!!!!!1!1!!1111!1!!!!1!
Sorry... I just came - or at least, I would have if I was a... Actually, I have genuinely no idea who the target audience is for this film. There isn't a whole lot of action going on, so the 3D spectacle won't be that impressive*, and it's Titanic, so there is not a whole lot of plot going on for two reasons: it was "directed, written, co-produced, and co-edited by James Cameron" - and we all literally know what happens already.
|Here is a subtle hint.|
So, if you actually want to see this film, congratulations; I literally have no idea what social group, race, religion, or creed you could possibly be affiliated with - but whoever you are, you don't believe in history, and you think that 1997 Academy Award winning films are somehow too dated to watch (without being remade) any more. Less than twenty years later. Actually, you can join the social group known as Nick Clegg and the Cameron Bros: people that Y. S. Rice is disappointed in.
Speaking of James Cameron, this article from screenrant.com explains why I will hate this film with such brevity and accuracy that even I am wondering if I didn't ghost-write it for them and then forget all about it. In the very first sentence (the first two words in fact), I quote: "James Cameron's". If that doesn't explain everything, then you should really read some of my older articles. But even if you do understand, you may still be wondering if I have any actual evidence to present against this film. After all, I haven't actually seen the movie yet (read as: 'and never will').
I have evidence, and it agrees with me.
Aside from the lack of any discernible audience with an IQ above 70, there's the matter of the quality of the 3D as a whole: "By James Cameron's own admission, a 3D rendering of Titanic will not look as good as Avatar, which was shot with 3D in mind". This is because, *Avatar - despite it's many failings - was filmed with a bi-ocular camera, which views things in exactly the same 3D fashion as our real eyes. Titanic, on the other hand - also with it's own many failings [to be discussed at a later date] - was filmed 'back in the day', when 3D films looked like this:
|It's just like he's popping out of the screen, pinning me to the |
ground, and punching my face until my brain hemorrhages.
Did I mention that James Cameron wrote the movie in question? Just checking.
Also, there is approximately one shot in the whole film which will look particularly cool in 3D at all:
|Everybody gets one.|
Impressive shot, I mean - not a lifeboat.
And James Cameron wrote it! And it's less than 15 years old! And Cameron wrote it!
Honestly, I don't know why I'm even trying to piece together a rational argument proclaiming how bad this is going to be. It will just be bad of its own volition: it is bad, and therefore it is. If you really want to see an attempt to make money off of Titanic's original success (dear lord, not the ship; the movie), then I cannot recommend Shane Van Dyke's Titanic II enough: it's hilariously bad, and it's directed, written by, and starring the same guy with a hilarious surname. Best lines? The bit where the designer explains that his ship (which is aesthetically identical to the original, and had just been hit along the side by an iceberg) wasn't designed to take a blow to the side from an iceberg - because he didn't anticipate that happening.
And on that note, I'd better get going. Titanic looks pretty grim to me, but admittedly it could be worse. They could be as deluded as the marketing division of Twilight: Breaking Dawn.
|Because screw you, Godfather, 2001: A Space Odyssey, |
The Seven Samurai, and so many other, more #1ish, films.
This has been very tardily yours,
Y. S. Rice