Titanic is not a movie that was made with 3D in mind. There’s not many shots in the movie that are action-oriented enough that it’s worth even putting them into 3D. The effects used were okay for their time, but nothing worthy of spending 15 million dollars to try to retrofit the movie into 3D.
What is there to be gained by bringing this film back in 3D, other than a creepy 3D sex scene and some awkward 3D nudity? Yes, we’ll get a 3D shot of Kate Winslett and Leonardo on the front of the ship “flying” and probably a nice shot of the Titanic going down, but do either of those warrant re-releasing a decade-old movie that no one–and I mean no one–was asking to see re-released in 3D?
3D is a cute novelty, and was wildly successful in Avatar. Toy Story 3D was fun but would have been just as superb without the 3D. But now we’re retrofitting old movies for no good reason other than an attempt to ensnare more money from the masses with minimal effort. 3D is an effect that can be worthwhile when used sparingly and intelligently–but Hollywood doesn’t seem interested in using it in that manner.
Can 3D survive the way it’s being bastardized right now? Maybe. Maybe the public will eat up whatever they’re given, and happily throw away $15/ticket to see old movies they could buy on DVD for pennies with some out-of-place 3D effects thrown in. So maybe 3D will survive. But in my opinion, it shouldn’t…