New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Kim Hollis: Look, I'm a person who did see The Lion King 3D in theaters on opening night. And when the 3D Titanic was announced, I thought, "Awesome. Sure, I'll go see that." But then after I thought about it, it occurred to me that I didn't really want to sit in a theater for more than three hours to watch something in 3D. The Lion King's 90 or so minutes of it is perfectly fine. And I will absolutely sit and watch Titanic every time I find it on cable - I think it's a marvelous technical achievement and I think it's an engaging film, to boot. In the end, I just wasn't really motivated to get to the theater. I think a lot of people feel the same way.

David Mumpower: Following up on Kim's point, I too saw The Lion King in the theater and then a few weeks later, I purchased the 3D Blu-Ray disc. The latter was cheaper than the former as well as more permanent. At that point, I didn't realize it but this proved to be the rationale for why I didn't see Titanic again this past weekend. I consider the film to be among the most important features of the past quarter century, maybe even THE most important. Still, I felt no onus to watch the 3D re-release during opening weekend. I fully expect to watch the title in 3D at least twice in the next six months as I trust James Cameron more than anyone else in the world with regards to 3D technology...and deep sea exploration. If I don't go on opening weekend, I understand why so few other people did. Leo's diehard fans are not 15 any more, either. They have jobs now and cannot pine for him all day at the theater. That's a sloppy logical inference and yet there is validity to it.

Biggest achievement? How about diving deeper into the ocean than anyone ever has?

Kim Hollis: With the benefit of some distance, which film's performance impresses you more, Titanic or Avatar? Which is the more impressive technical achievement?

Brett Beach: Hmmm. Amassing a massive amount of money in one fell swoop, or in a slightly more molasses crawl fell swoop (at lower ticket prices, natch). I go for Titanic, if only because its "performance," including people globally swooning over the characters and the romance and seeing it an ungodly amount of times, and for spending four months at number one. I don't feel like Avatar produced that much passion then or with hindsight, though it may have been similarly as successful at getting people who "don't go out to see films" to see it. As for the technical achievements, my 3-D bias keeps me from making an objective assessment of that. I defer to my colleagues.

Max Braden: Given the choice, I'd prefer to watch Avatar. But performance-wise, Titanic is an easy pick. Megaplexes were firmly established by the time it was released, but Titanic was a true throwback to the time before the impact of opening weekend box office. Titanic audiences just kept coming and coming. Titanic held the top spot at the box office from before Christmas until the end of March, and only then did it fall below a ten-million-dollar weekend. Avatar, over a decade later, only held on to the top spot from pre-Christmas through January, and fell below a ten-million-dollar weekend at the beginning of February. And that was with boosted ticket prices. It was also made a decade later in a highly technical era, with funds and experience thanks to Titanic. Titanic impresses me more on both fronts. But I've only seen it twice, and I'm not moved to seek it out again.

Continued:       1       2       3       4       5       6