Would I turn down a chance to see my favorite movie ever on the big screen? Of course not. I've said it before, that despite all the flaws and alleged "cheesiness," it is the movie that made me fall in love with film. That's when I started collecting movies--well, you know, other than Disney :)--and following the careers of certain actors. I remember random facts, like when I saw it in theaters, and I can remember doing like all my projects it... and imagine a 5th grader playing "Titanic" on the playground? Yeah, that was me, lol. And you know I was always Rose.
But back to the original point. I like the idea of rereleasing the film, but I see no point in showing it in 3D. Jim himself said that "it's never going to look as good as if you shot it in 3D." Okay... so then why are we sacrificing artistic integrity just to make a few extra dollars? (Did I mention that he's also planning to rerelease Avatar later this year with new scenes?) I mean, we get it. You're the creative genius behind the two highest grossing movies ever, and your advancements with Avatar have transformed the way effects are being thought about, but not every film has to be Avatar now. Is it not enough to just let the film be shown in its original glory? It won 11 Oscars that year, including the 2 big ones (um, how many did Avatar get?). He's a great filmmaker, but it just seems he's gotten a little too full of himself.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment