Come on, Jim, we all know you're not that much of a whore, and we know how much you loathe 3D conversions of 2D films and you'd much rather have shot-in-camera steroscopic effects, so what gives?
Apparently James Cameron plans on celebrating the centennial anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic by re-releasing Titanic to theaters in April 2012. The date would directly correlate to the demise of over 2,000 passengers who couldn't get off the notoriously "unsinkable" ship after she struck an iceberg on April 14, 1912.
In an article chronicling the 100th birthday of Titanic co-star Gloria Stuart (yes, the old Rose), The Los Angeles Times dropped this tidbit about the forthcoming re-release: "said the director, who's converting the blockbuster into 3-D for re-release in April 2012, the 100th anniversary of the ship's sinking."
This is just hilarious to me, especially because Cameron himself was such a staunch proponent of in-camera stereoscopic 3D during the production of Avatar that he claimed converting 2D films to 3D was vastly inferior and shouldn't be done.
Now, I'm not staunchly against 3D conversions or re-releasing of films to cinemas, but there's got to be a classier way to honor the 100th anniversary of a horrible marine disaster than unnecessarily converting your (by then) 15 year-old movie into three dimensions just so you can rake in some more cash from what used to be the top grossing film in the world. In what way is that reverent? How about a deluxe Blu-Ray set instead? Or a nice ceremony? Or a new documentary about the actual event?
As much as I like Kate Winslet and her boobs, I don't need to see either of them in bad 3D, and especially not on the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking. What's next? Michael Bay converting and re-releasing Pearl Harbor on December 7, 2041?