because Kate Winslet’s heart going on is way cooler in 3D

Now if they can just rig the theaters to spray some water on the audience too...

Somehow I doubt that it will be Ms. Winslet's heart most straight male movie-goers will be thinking of when they buy tickets for this project...

Like St. Patrick's Day is for most people who like to drink, so 3D is for studios who want to re-release a previous blockbuster in theaters to make more money. It's just an excuse.

And that's fine. You want to go out and get sloshed? Go right ahead and have fun, no matter what day it is. You want to give audiences the chance to see a movie they like on the big screen again? Go nuts! Don't worry about the gimmicks and excuses. Just do it.

Having been only seven when the film came out, Titanic essentially defined "film" in my childhood. Even with the cursing, nudity, bloodshed, extreme running time, etc., I wore out my parents' VHS (usually with my parents in the room, of course). The film even propelled this nerd into a love for any Titanic-related nonfiction book I could find.

In short, if James Cameron wants to re-release the film in 3-D, I'll be first in line at the local cineplex, come rain or come shine.

Will this film never die? I really really really don't like it and now it's being released again. Sigh. Oh well, as long as no-one tries to make me go and see it it's all good.

@Isobel: Well, I think compulsory attendance might just be the only way that Cameron films could possibly make more money . . . but unless there is compulsory attendance, I'm not gonna be rushing to see it either.

I'm with Josh C. on this one. This was one of the first defining films in my life (I was 10 in '97) and I will go see it in 3D the day it comes out.

MaryAnn, are you objecting to the blatant money-grubbing aspect of this rerelease? Is it enough to make you not want to see a film that you like/love? (Just curious.)

I think she's objecting to the fact that 3-D will not in any way enhance the experience. Avatar's 3-D worked because it was integral to the film. What about Titanic would be better in 3-D, though? I can't see that it will improve the movie.

For those of you who have issues about the rerelease of that boat movie James Cameron did,let me say three words: BOYCOTT!!! BOYCOTT!!! BOYCOTT!!! Just stay home and watch your movies in the privacy of YOUR OWN BIG SCREEN! WHO'S WITH ME ON THIS??? LET ME HEAR FROM YOU!!!

You know, I'm a relatively staunch defender of 3d as a legitimate fim technology, but this strikes me as awful.

It's no different than Ted Turner's "colorized" films. Films in black and white were MADE for black and white. Avatar showed what 3d could be for films MADE for 3d. Going back and slapping on 3d to a 2d film is just going to cheapen both the 3d technology and the film it's applied to.

I see your point, Jurgan.

Now wait just a gorram second.

Hasn't James Cameron himself been all up in Hollywood's shit about how you can't just take a regular movie and make it 3D? That this kind of 3D sucks? That a 3D movie has to be conceived in 3D, shot in 3D, be completely immersed in the requirements of 3D (apparently to the exclusion of other such trivialities as, I dunno, storytelling).

Y'know what? Fuck James Cameron. King of the world, my ass.

Dr. Rocketscience is correct. Without actually having filmed the original movie in 3-D, with twin lenses capturing footage a few inches apart from each other, the "3-D" in this new Titanic will be completely

Ersatz.
Artificial.
Imagined.
FAKE.

Pass.

Hasn't James Cameron himself been all up in Hollywood's shit about how you can't just take a regular movie and make it 3D?

Unless there's some secret major improvement to the technology for 2D-to-3D transfer that we don't know about.

Just speculating.

(I was 10 in '97)

Having been only seven when the film came out

Man, I'm feeling old.