Sound Off: James Cameron's 'Titanic' in 3D - So What Did You Think?

April 4, 2012

Titanic 3D

Now that you've seen it, what did you think? "So this is the ship they say is unsinkable." It's back in theaters all over again. James Cameron's cinematic epic Titanic has returned in glorious, converted 3D. Given this site didn't exist when the movie first came out in 1997 (though I did see it many times), I thought it'd be fun to start a Sound Off on Titanic, for its 3D re-release this week on the 100th Anniversary of the voyage of the RMS Titanic in April 1912. How was the 3D conversion, did it add to the experience and make a better movie? Once you've seen it in 3D, leave a comment below with your own thoughts on Titanic in 3D.

As I haven't actually seen the full 3D version yet myself (soon!), here are Ethan's thoughts from his recent 3D screening of the movie: "Titanic has never looked better on the big screen. It's one of the most impressive 3D conversions to hit theaters, and it makes the sheer size of Titanic itself and the production value of the film all the more powerful and impressive. Not to mention the fact that the film still holds up after 15 years (the audience laughed in all the right parts and there was plenty of sniffling and tears in my vicinity), this is truly a film that deserves a big re-release and it's worth seeing in theaters all over again."

So what did you think of Titanic in 3D? Did it enhance the epic experience, or dull it down? We will remove any comments that indicate you have not seen the movie, as this area is meant to discuss the film only once you have seen it and can talk about your thoughts. Please keep the comments civilized!

Find more posts: 3D News, Discuss, Hype, Sound Off



Not gonna see it...but I'll give you my thoughts on the '97 version. Its good. Winslet and DiCaprio had great chemistry, Bates was a delight as usual, Zane played a great dick character. The sinking of the ship was epic, the guy hitting the propeller and flipping eleven times crazy.

Xerxexx on Apr 4, 2012


favorite part of the film, not gonna lie.

reeft on Apr 4, 2012


 Secretly every bodies favorite part.

Xerxexx on Apr 4, 2012


I think it's brilliant that you brought up that part of the film. I'm horrible but I laugh whenever I see that part.  

Darren_Kowall on Apr 5, 2012


KATE's 3-D BOOBIES SHOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO SEE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yes i know im lonely......

Jericho on Apr 5, 2012


 its a great part.

Xerxexx on Apr 5, 2012


Saw it this monday. The 3D puts you out of the film instead of drawing you in. The dodgy CGI and greenscreen-shots stand out now.  Some of the shots in the film were muddy and felt out of focus. Had not noticed that on DVD, But it's a good film, a bit too long and they could have cut alot or all of the "present time" stuff with bill paxton and old Rose.

Ryderup on Apr 4, 2012


I thought it was exactly the same but in 3D

Jalts4 on Apr 4, 2012


It was good as it was in 1997. 

Truong18 on Apr 4, 2012


 Come on, stop being all lame. Yes, we all know how it was in 1997, but how was it in 3D today? Did you even see it? Did you really like it then, was it better now, or do you hate it now? Elaborate, say more than 8 words!

Alex Billington on Apr 4, 2012


I think you are expecting too much from 3D. I go to movies for the story. 3D doesn't change the story only the way it is presented. Personally I do not think it adds anything, but it does distract.

netizen24601 on Apr 4, 2012


How does the 3D "distract?"  Sure, the story's the same; wouldn't expect it to change.  It only makes it seem more lifelike.  We live in a three-dimensional world so why not recreate that on film?  Your argument would be akin to saying color "distracts" from B/W.

Steve on Apr 4, 2012


 I go to movies for the experience, and 3D can be a part of that experience. Sure, the story is the same, but 3D can enhance. Did you see Avatar? Or Hugo? Or Titanic 3D? I'm not saying the story will change, but maybe if you hate 3D so much, if you were to see Titanic 3D you'd find yourself less of a fan of the film.

Alex Billington on Apr 4, 2012


As I wrote. The 3D doesn't draw you in - it distance  you from the film. Your suddenly watching a spectacle. And that work for films like Transformers3 or My Bloody Valentine or whatever - but for this film I didn't felt it enchanced anything. Rather tooka way from me being sucked into it. Saying like Steve above that "we're living in a 3D world so this has to be a better way of seeing things" is redicioulus.

Ryderup on Apr 5, 2012


Your view on 3D is an odd one! Most everybody I know who saw it agree that the 3D makes it more realistic. Everything from the sense of height from the Bow Or stern or from Jack & Fabrizio's point of view down to Southampton Dock is dramatically enhanced by the 3D.

Cbc on Apr 16, 2012


Saw this in 3d today.  Took me back to 15 years ago when I watched it on the big screen.  I found the 3D to be very subtle.  It enhanced the overall experience but did not have a "jarring" effect.  I felt like I was watching the movie the way it was meant to be seen.  Its worth the trip.  Thanks to Mr. Cameron for the effort.  Great experience

Geogojira on Apr 4, 2012


Nice fake "review". How much did you get paid to type this dribble, Geogojira?

Bobby on Apr 4, 2012


Bobby, you are going to have to deal with the fact that Titanic is a great movie.

Nimie on Apr 4, 2012


For the most part it is. But the 3D cheapens it.

Ryderup on Apr 5, 2012


I didn't feel that the 3D added anything to the movie. It doesn't change the fact that it's an incredible movie.

Ryan on Apr 4, 2012


Just got back from the theater...  Took my 13-year-old son who loves history...  Wished I could have covered his eyes while Jack was sketching Rose...  All that said, I don't really think the 3D added anything special to the movie.  I've seen it a dozen times since it's original release, but I LOVED seeing it on the big screen again with great surround sound.  Noticed others commenting about the guy hitting the propeller.  My son went on and on about that as well.  My son also noted that the pistol Cal shot at Rose/Jack was an M-1911.  He was impressed with the accuracy of that detail.

Sheri on Apr 4, 2012


Your 13 year old son has definitely seen shit like ten times more nasty than Jack sketching Rose. 

Lebowski on Apr 4, 2012


+1...  If you want to protect your son, make him live in a box. God bless Europe and the naked women in the ads at any time. (and nobody there has any problem with it.)

Dexter on Apr 5, 2012


I agree.  13 is old enough to see something that is done with taste and respect.  Nudity isn't the issue, it's how woman are treated in a scene that shows nudity.  In that scene Jack is practically worshipping her.  Personally, I'd be more concerned that my son knew different types of historical gun makes...

greedo on Apr 5, 2012


covered a 13 years old eyes when a pair of breats show up in a LOVE STORY? Are you part of that Red State christian cult or something? Isn't it more disturbing that he keeps tracks on different firearms and getting crazy over people getting killed in propelers?

Ryderup on Apr 5, 2012


Can't believe people on this site sometimes, roasting a parent for trying to shield her child.

HealthyPoison on Apr 5, 2012


 From a pair of breasts. Its not like it was porn. A woman's breasts are not detrimental to a child's eyes. Especially a little boys.

Xerxexx on Apr 5, 2012


Not detrimental, and this is all off topic, but really, if the worst thing this parent does is try to protect their child at the age of 13, then no big deal.  A mom shouldn't be okay with showing their child breasts when they are 13.  Let him go run off and find a playboy like we did when we were kids.

HealthyPoison on Apr 5, 2012


 Ah, playboy...good times. Indeed you are right, however when posted online the hate is gonna come out of the woodwork, at 13 the kid should have the sex talk and be fully aware that it is okay for him to see a pair of breasts...especially Kate Winslet's.

Xerxexx on Apr 5, 2012


I enjoyed the movie immensely the first time I saw it.  Now, it's even better.  Somehow, Cameron manages to make it look like it was originally shot in 3D.  No cheezy, "Gee-Whiz" effects; just seems like it was meant to be seen this way.  Loved it and will go back again - just like I did in 1997.

Steve on Apr 4, 2012


Well worth seeing again on the big screen.  I enjoyed every minute of it and the 3D especially made the clothing more beautiful and many more things very crisp.  We are very lucky to have this opportunity again.  Thank you to everyone that made it possible.

Linda on Apr 4, 2012


 just got back from the theater, and unlike you guys i watched it when i was extremely young so i hardly remember anything. It was really kool in 3D REALLY takes you in, i cant belive i havent watched this movie sooner it was great, except the naked parts comon, let it be kids friendly, if u wanna see b00bies then go watch some PR0N jeez >>

Ramin on Apr 4, 2012


It wasnt a cheap nude scene.  What the fuck is wrong with americans and nudity.  He was sketching her and you could feel the emotion between them.  It wasnt in there just for boobs it was in there to increase their connection.

dieringer scott on Apr 17, 2012


Saw the 3d version today. I loved the movie in 97 and love it in 2012 3d. The 3d really pulls you into the film and enhances the cinimatography. I felt part of the film. Some High points were the underwater shots at the open of the film. The small things floating in the water seemed like they were all around me. The bots exploring the decaying ship and looking down deep cavities was incredable and felt like I was in the submersable. The interior of the ship after it hit the iceburg and started to flood was interesting with the depth of 3d. I found myself flinching to try to dodge the sprays of freezing saltwater as the ship started to fill with the atlantic ocean. Rose dangeling off the back rails gave a cool perspective of the height of her failed sucide attempt . Great job with the 3d conversion!!!

Ed1912buf on Apr 5, 2012


The 3D conversion in Titanic actually looked better than some films that are shot in 3D.  That said, I can't get over the fact that some scenes didn't feel three-dimensional, but rather looked like a couple of thin, two dimensional planes placed on top of each other. Also, for some reason, the big sunset kiss looked out of focus.  I kept taking my glasses off and putting them back on, but it still looked blurry. On the upside, its a 3D film over three hours and I didn't get a headache. It's a great film that didn't need the added dimension, but what film really does?

JP on Apr 5, 2012


Alot of the shots looked out of focus. I guess it's something you haven't noticed before.

Ryderup on Apr 5, 2012


I thought Cameron hated converted 3D movies? But as far as this conversion goes, it's definitely a lot better than other 3D converted movies. Did it add to the experience? I would say yes...  but it's not a big difference.

Nathan on Apr 5, 2012


Out of all the big VFX films of the 90s, Titanic holds up better than any of them (tied by Jurassic Park and its sequel). It looks like it was filmed in 3D in 2012. The ship breaking in half looked amazing

Jurassic_Max on Apr 5, 2012


I laughed and loved it. I noticed things I had not before. The color is amazing!!! It deserves to be on the big screen. Go see it

Chaele3 on Apr 5, 2012


If Cameron redid Titanic in 3D why can't we get T2 or Aliens in 3D? Now those would be awesome. You can't tell me the T-1000 wouldn't look killer in 3D.

The Douche on Apr 5, 2012


Maybe because they were quite a bit older? That would be kick ass though.

Nasser AlMulaifi on Apr 5, 2012


Aliens was shot on very grainy film stock and wouldn't be a good choice for a 3D conversion.

Max Renn on Apr 5, 2012


The 3D part of it added just a little bit of depth, nothing amazing. But I also saw it in IMAX.  The IMAX part of it was awesome!  

Carol A on Apr 5, 2012


I thought it was a different experience seeing it in 3D. I thought it made more of an impact! Especially during the sinking scene. It seemed sadder as well. Still my favorite movie!!

ShamrockSugar on Apr 6, 2012


Was there today. Yes, it is great. And a love to watch Kate Winslet face in 3D. 🙂

Vitali Bykov on Apr 7, 2012


Titanic in 3D? "If they don't see the iceberg even this time, they deserve to die!" 

Maxy on Apr 8, 2012


Saw it today - the only time since once when it was released.  Great in IMAX. But, watching it, reminded me of what a great a movie it is - something I had forgotten.  Cameron - humanized the Titanic disaster -and that is the strength of the film.  

Jeffrose48 on Apr 8, 2012


Love the Titanic movie, but the 3D I went to see Easter night and was not to impressed with the 3D part, it is still a good movie, that will make you go thru so emotions in 3 hours... 

Hmonty on Apr 9, 2012


I loved the original film and for a long time it was my all time favourite but I have to laugh at Cameron's hypocrisy at flaming other film makers for "cashing in" with the 3D when he was getting ready to release Avatar. What is this release if it's not 'cashing in'?  ps I have no plans to see the film in 3D as I think the whole effect is not as groundbreaking or amazing as so many others believe it to be.

Payne by name on Apr 10, 2012


There is nothing 3d about the film whatsoever however I am a huge fan of this film and seeing it on the big screen was amazing and better then watching it at home. Mno regrets about going to see it but it was silly to make in 3d they should of just re released it

Guest on Apr 11, 2012


Watched the film today on the 100th anniversary with my daughter. The 3D rendition was spectacular! Compaired to 3D release of Star Was Episode I, which in comparison was an extreme disappointment and a complete waste of money. This is definitely the correct way to convert a standard film to 3D, frame by frame. Looks like I may have to start an online petition to persuade James Cameron to convert my all time favorite of his films, Aliens – imagine what an experience seeing Aliens in 3D on the big screen would be!

Shannon on Apr 15, 2012


My first 3D film ever and I'm 63. In the first 1/3 of the film the 3D was a bit cartoonish. For instance, a) the scene where they are loading the car onto the titanic, and b) the scene where Jack is talking Kate out of jumping off the boat. Didn't work as I had hoped. It was kind of like the old stereoscopes with the round discs where you pulled a lever down to rotate the disc to get to the next picture. But by the second third Cameron was firmly in control of the technology and the drama. The last two thirds was superb and the 3D effects never interfered with the story. In fact it enhanced them.  I think 3D is a developing art and will only get better as they master their interpolation techniques.

Woodworker on Apr 22, 2012

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram