Titanic In 3D: A Scam

by Chris Traficante Featured 339 Comments 39 Votes 19073 Views 04/04/2012 Back to Articles

James Cameron's soppy, overrated epic Titanic is due to be, purely for the sake of revenue, re-released in 3D here, in Victoria, as of tomorrow. The film sucked upon its release in 1997, continues to suck now and, without doubt, will suck in a 3D format. In short: this is a scam of, pardon the pun, epic proportions.

Observation of the relationship between Jack and Rose does not require 3D glasses. The film's melodramatic form and content is intense enough; magnifying it furthermore will only make the mind ache and the eyes strain. I understand that the film forms part of the disaster genre and, in scenes, might be complimented by the engulfing experience of viewing it in 3D. This, however, is not the reason for its re-release. Some might argue that the re-release commemorates the film's 15th year in existence and 100 years since the Titanic crashed. This notion, however, only comforts the minds of optimists, not realists. Without sounding too blunt, this is another cash-in exercise.

Cameron's film has already grossed over $1bn worldwide; the film will continue to make its money. There will be those that argue that the film's gross revenue is symptomatic of the film's 'heart-wrenching' narrative. For those that adhere to that notion, I pity you. Cameron's brilliant 1991 sci-fi/thriller/action sequel Terminator 2: Judgment Day is heart-wrenching; John Connor needs a father and the T-800, despite his mechanical make-up, fills the boy's paternal void. Aliens, much like T2, is another Cameron film that deserves a re-release far more than Titanic. It's a scintillating, terrifying follow-up to Alien, Ridley Scott's strong, but relatively slow-paced 1979 original.

In short, a schlocky melodrama like Titanic in 3D will only entertain those that are easily entertained. Sure, we get it: the steamy, window-gripping Jack-Rose encounter bursts with romance and passion. Yeah, so does Before Sunrise, so does Annie Hall and so does Last Tango in Paris, but I cannot recall any of these features being given the sort of air time that Cameron's soppy flick has been given.

By Chris Traficante

Link to us http://movies.mmgn.com/Articles/Titanic-In-3D-A-Scam
Tags: Caprio Di leonardo Titanic
Register or Login to vote for this article.
Alternatively, connect with Facebook or Twitter.
Facebook Connect Twitter Login

More Info on Titanic

  • Titanic
  • Titanic
  • Titanic
Movie Profile: Titanic
Australian Release: Out Now

Titanic In 3D: A Scam Comments

Leave a comment Log in with Facebook
I will never see this film again. [MOG]
A hater in 'Titanic' proportions.

I'm sorry, I'm so so sorry [Facepalm]
I only like the last hour
Aren't all these bring backs a scam?

Phantom Menace in 3D, Lion King in 3D etc.

More so because 3D costs more. These old movies back in 3D should be half the price of a normal ticket.
The movie was alright.

Might watch. I dunno.
All i read was blah blah blah...

I didn't mind the film when it was released, i get the acting isn't great and the plot isn't the best ever but the fact this tragedy really happened is what pulled me in.

Maybe they are plugging it for more cash with this re-release but i don't see the harm in it, it's to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Titanic's sinking
I enjoyed it when I first watched it, but it's definitely just a big-budget romance soap opera. I don't have any urge to watch in 3D, but I still don't mind watching it if I randomly come across it on TV.

He needs to fund his sea dives to "nothingness" with something, right?

Ben said: Aren't all these bring backs a scam?
Phantom Menace in 3D, Lion King in 3D etc.
More so because 3D costs more. These old movies back in 3D should be half the price of a normal ticket.


Exactly. That being said, TPM and TLK rip 'Titanic'. [MOG]

Dicky said: All i read was blah blah blah...
I didn't mind the film when it was released, i get the acting isn't great and the plot isn't the best ever but the fact this tragedy really happened is what pulled me in.
Maybe they are plugging it for more cash with this re-release but i don't see the harm in it, it's to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Titanic's sinking


LOL @ the 'blah blah' thing. Sure, I get the whole centennary gig and the 15-year gap since the film was released, but I don't think the film is out to entertain audiences this time around. As you said, it's purely for cash.
Dicky likes Titanic, he has a vagina. [MOG]
I have a vagina... I like Titanic... what?
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you didn't enjoy Titanic all that much. [MOG]

Silence said: If I didn't know any better, I'd say you didn't enjoy Titanic all that much.


LOL. Perceptive. [MOG]
I don't really see how it's a scam. They're not falsely advertising it as something it's not. They're not ripping people off with a cheap or bad quality experience. The name says it all: Titanic 3D. That's what consumers will expect, and it's what they'll get.

Makra said: I don't really see how it's a scam. They're not falsely advertising it as something it's not. They're not ripping people off with a cheap or bad quality experience. The name says it all: Titanic 3D. That's what consumers will expect, and it's what they'll get.


Customers know what they will get, but the intention behind the initiative is ludicrous. If anything, cinema houses should reflect on what they're doing and introduce retro screenings more regularly, rather than mindlessly - and boringly - cashing in on films that are profitable behind the guise of 'the unique 3D experience'. Whilst it isn't false advertising, the intention to revamp 'Titanic' in 3D in cinemas here is not just to kick-start nostalgia. It's to profit off a profitable film at a profitable box office price.
I got forced to watch it once...Never again. [Facepalm]

jordo3794 said: I got forced to watch it once...Never again.


My sympathies are with you. :(

Cinemaniac said:

Makra said: I don't really see how it's a scam. They're not falsely advertising it as something it's not. They're not ripping people off with a cheap or bad quality experience. The name says it all: Titanic 3D. That's what consumers will expect, and it's what they'll get.


Customers know what they will get, but the intention behind the initiative is ludicrous. If anything, cinema houses should reflect on what they're doing and introduce retro screenings more regularly, rather than mindlessly - and boringly - cashing in on films that are profitable behind the guise of 'the unique 3D experience'. Whilst it isn't false advertising, the intention to revamp 'Titanic' in 3D in cinemas here is not just to kick-start nostalgia. It's to profit off a profitable film at a profitable box office price.


Ugh not this old nugget. What exactly is wrong with a business trying to profit?
@Makra: Nothing is wrong with a profiting business, but when the profiting business is not providing the consumer with acceptable goods and services, the consumer has a right to question their method of sale and the quality of their product.
3D has saved the cinema

IAMColonel said: 3D has saved the cinema


How?
Errr no. Just no.

You have 2 people. Person A doesn't like Titanic, so they decide not to buy a ticket to Titanic 3D. Person B does like Titanic, and they wish to see the film in 3D, so they buy a ticket.

Person A has no right whatsoever to "question their method of sale and the quality of their product". Why? Because the business has no legal obligation to them.

Person B, does however have a legal agreement in place with the cinema. The agreement would be that the consumer agrees to pay a certain amount of money, in return for a promise from the cinema that they are granted entry to one showing of the film. The only right that Person B has, is to demand they are granted entry to see the film that they paid for.

The cinema makes no guarantees regarding the subjective quality of the film. So even if Person B had never seen Titanic before, and upon seeing it they didn't like it, they still do not have the right to complain about the quality of the product.

There is especially no right for either person to question their method of sale, unless the advertising is deceptive or misleading.

Cinemaniac said:

IAMColonel said: 3D has saved the cinema


How?



Three things have arrived in the past half decade: Digital distribution, immediate and convenient piracy, and the influence of an ever-changing, up to date information machine, the Internet.

Let's face it, paying to go a cinema is not at all appealing (movie geeks aside) when these other two options, DD and piracy, are available and easy to attain.

The Internet has us here, talking about movies, looking at movies, we want movies, we want them now. To the average person though, they couldn't give a stuff if it's the same idea recycled (see Hollywood 1980-present day) or even, the same movie.

3D, as stupid and useless and overly saturated it is, was the film industries kick up its own ass, a marketing centrepiece that has evolved the cinema, once again (like talkies, colour film etc), into a 'new' and exciting experience. The common movie-goer gets excited about things jumping out at them, and some clever marketing doesn't have them pondering over whether to go to the cinemas or download it, it tells them they MUST go to the cinemas and experience 3D.

Now of course I have nothing to say that the cinemas would be dead now if not for 3D, because they obviously wouldn't be. But, just look at TV with reality shows & the dying music industry's journey even further into pop trash. The film industry has reacted with at least some dignity, and has come out on top, all thanks to 3D and their genius, yet obvious marketing cash grabs, in my humble opinion.
@Makra: When a consumer buys a product from a wholesaler, they engage in a contract - known fact. If that product affects them adversely, in some cases, the consumer has grounds to bring legal action against the body they purchased from, hence why businesses take out 'business insurance', whether that be public liability and/or professional indemnity. :D

Yes, you're right that subjectivity and taste cannot be sanctioned - that's logical. That being said, there is no harm in questioning the marketing methods behind such a move like the 'Titanic 3D' gig. Sure, people have the capacity to buy a $20 ticket, or to save their money. I do, however, think that it's wrong that cash cow slaughtering is the cinema's only option to bring audiences in. Simply show retro screenings of film at regulalr prices without the add-ons (i.e., glasses). The legalities of buying and selling, I believe, are irrelevant here. This is a question of marketing and ethics and the buyer being self-aware enough to notice the philosophy behind the sale.
@IAMColonel: I get that the 3D approach can lure audiences in to the cinemas, as it is nostalgic. I would argue, however, that retro viewings of films should be affordable, as the sheer popularity of the film would bring audiences in, as opposed to add-ons and visual frameworks that further inflate the price.

Cinemaniac said:

jordo3794 said: I got forced to watch it once...Never again.


My sympathies are with you.


It was horrible! Damn my ex :'@
So many vaginas...

Cinemaniac said: @Makra: When a consumer buys a product from a wholesaler, they engage in a contract - known fact. If that product affects them adversely, in some cases, the consumer has grounds to bring legal action against the body they purchased from, hence why businesses take out 'business insurance', whether that be public liability and/or professional indemnity.


Sure, should we also bring up equity, capacity to enter a contract or unconscionable conduct too? Not sure why you mentioned that as it really isn't relevant.


Yes, you're right that subjectivity and taste cannot be sanctioned - that's logical. That being said, there is no harm in questioning the marketing methods behind such a move like the 'Titanic 3D' gig. Sure, people have the capacity to buy a $20 ticket, or to save their money. I do, however, think that it's wrong that cash cow slaughtering is the cinema's only option to bring audiences in. Simply show retro screenings of film at regulalr prices without the add-ons (i.e., glasses). The legalities of buying and selling, I believe, are irrelevant here. This is a question of marketing and ethics and the buyer being self-aware enough to notice the philosophy behind the sale.


I was only disproving your allegation about 'rights' of consumers. Seeing as that disproved allegation was in response to my question of "what exactly is wrong with a business trying to profit", perhaps you would like to come up with an alternate response to that? You refer to ethics: what is ethically wrong with a business trying to make money legally, without causing any harm whatsoever?
@Makra: 'Titanic' + 3D = harm. Simple. ;)
I saw it at the movies when it first came out. Everyone cried and I wondered why she didn't try and make room for Jack on the wardrobe door...

HE WAS HOT!

Cinemaniac said: @Makra: 'Titanic' + 3D = harm. Simple.


Insightful ;)
This seems a little harsh.

What if one of your favourite movies was remade in 3D, would you call it a scam as well?

I'm sure people who are fans of the movie would love to rewatch it. It's fine if you don't personally enjoy titanic but thats probably why your not the target audience for this film.

Jason said: This seems a little harsh.
What if one of your favourite movies was remade in 3D, would you call it a scam as well?


Yeah, I would. Just play it in normal vision and charge standard prices, instead of marketing it as something greater than it actually is and tacking on additional dollars for the viewing.

Jason said: This seems a little harsh.
What if one of your favourite movies was remade in 3D, would you call it a scam as well?
I'm sure people who are fans of the movie would love to rewatch it. It's fine if you don't personally enjoy titanic but thats probably why your not the target audience for this film.



Indeed- like the re made Star Wars in 3D *_*
Toki
+

Kerosanak said: So many vaginas...



You don't like vaginas? :O [Shifty]

To be honest, Flame me if you will. I will admit that i like the movie, I have seen it once when i was younger and caught the last hour or so of it on TV sometime last year.

I have nothing against them making it into a 3D film, It just means they can profit more money (nothing wrong with someone wanting to make money) but because it's been 100 years since the sinking, It has a reason, Kind of like a celebration for lack of a better word. Now if it was say... 2008 i would see why you would call it a cash grab.
How is this a scam? The title says it all - Titanic in 3D. It's not like some Nigerian Prince is asking you to donate a milli to his pubic hair removal foundation.

If you don't like it don't go see it. No one is forcing you to watch it. I mean sure the movie studio is trying to get more money, but isn't that the same with all 3D releases? And isn't that the point of making a business anyway?

GreenThumb said:

Kerosanak said: So many vaginas...


You don't like vaginas?
To be honest, Flame me if you will. I will admit that i like the movie, I have seen it once when i was younger and caught the last hour or so of it on TV sometime last year.
I have nothing against them making it into a 3D film, It just means they can profit more money (nothing wrong with someone wanting to make money) but because it's been 100 years since the sinking, It has a reason, Kind of like a celebration for lack of a better word. Now if it was say... 2008 i would see why you would call it a cash grab.



What about 2013?

This 3D re-release trend is the way of the future, or at least the next decade.
Makra and IAC are absolutely right.
Cinemaniac, you make some good points (about having Retro cinema available) but you seem to be overlooking so, so, SO MUCH, in your apparent hatred for a film.
To the Retro idea; Cinemas like the Astor in Melbourne try SO HARD to do this. The studios don't release prints of the films, this is not a fault of the cinemas AT ALL.
I can't see ANYONE to blame for this, at all.
James Cameron: Wants to show what he can do with post converted 3D, and see his Baby have a wide release in Cinemas again. Also, MONEY.
Ok, so we're fine with that one? Yes. Moving on.
The Studios: MONEY (JUST LIKE EVERY MOVIE RELEASE EVER. NO RELEASE. NO MONEY.)
Ok, that one makes sense too...
The Cinemas: MONEY.
FILM IS A INDUSTRY RUN BY MONEY.
Films don't get released to entertain people, that's a crock of shit. That's why people MAKE films. People RELEASE films, TO MAKE MONEY.

SIMPLE AS THAT.

A Man named Harvey Weinstein used to release small films. He practically formed this generation of Directors (Tarantino, Smith, etc.) And now ask anyone of those people he made famous what he does now.
There was a time where studios released films to get films seen, to entertain the masses. This is NOT THAT TIME.
I don't know what you're expecting for any of these parties to say?

No, we don't want money from the people who WANT OUR PRODUCT (Cos they will be THE ONLY PEOPLE GOING)
No, I don't want to rerelease my film for everyone to see again in a new format which I revolutionized.

You may be forgetting this. But there's nothing more delightful as a Director, knowing that people are watching your movie. And I can only imagine, that feeling but in a CINEMA (The way it was meant to be seen).

Man, I just don't see how any of the shit your saying is rational at all.

I geddit, you don't like Titanic. Some people do. The end.
Remove 3D and use retro screenings in a standard visual format. 3D is a poor excuse to swindle more money out of our pockets. For instance, whilst Scorsese's 'Hugo' is a brilliant adventure/drama that drips with melancholy and nostalgia, watching it in 3D was useless. Scorsese and Cameron's films sell; this means that there is a market receptive to their works. Slapping an extra $1-2 on top of the ticket value of a Scorsese or Cameron film increases revenue substantially, as many tickets will sell.

I know cinema is business; films internationalised when the autonomy of studios were reduced with the advent of art film. 3D viewing doesn't improve film culture at all; just house the films in their original cinematic format, retro or contemporary, and be done with it. [MOG]
Can't tell if this is trolling or for real...It's very narrow minded. Of course they re released this in 3d for quick cash, but to say that everyone who watches it is 'easily entertained' is a little ignorant.
I'm definitely not seeing this in 3D, but maybe some folk just want to see it in 3D to recapture the magical feel of the movie like when it was released on the big screen those years ago. It's a big screen film. Watching it on tv doesn't do it justice. 3D will enhance it.
This is of course your own hated opinion, not millions of others.
I for one totally enjoyed every second of this version (1997), it's the only movie that my bum didn't goto sleep on EVER, and it was what 3hrs ? - I wanted more.
As for 3D not interested, doesn't work for me. And then there's the price of admission, Cinemas lost me years ago with a price of $8 and above.


Cinemaniac said: Remove 3D and use retro screenings in a standard visual format. 3D is a poor excuse to swindle more money out of our pockets. For instance, whilst Scorsese's 'Hugo' is a brilliant adventure/drama that drips with melancholy and nostalgia, watching it in 3D was useless. Scorsese and Cameron's films sell; this means that there is a market receptive to their works. Slapping an extra $1-2 on top of the ticket value of a Scorsese or Cameron film increases revenue substantially, as many tickets will sell.
I know cinema is business; films internationalised when the autonomy of studios were reduced with the advent of art film. 3D viewing doesn't improve film culture at all; just house the films in their original cinematic format, retro or contemporary, and be done with it.


Seriously?
Did you just say that Scorsese made Hugo in 3D for those few extra dollars?
Cameron, I'd disagree with.
BUT THE GRANDMASTER HIMSELF!?
3D added so much more depth to Hugo. It was so much more immersive in 3D. It looked way more beautiful.

It's extremely clear to me why this article was made though. You're a 3D Hater (HUGO, SERIOUSLY!?) who also hates Titanic.

Both Cameron and Scorsese, as Filmmakers, really, really believe that it adds more to their films. Who are you to say that they are wrong, or that they are doing it purely for the money.
3D is another tool for the Filmmaker to use. Sure, it generates more revenue, but that's not what a Director is thinking about when he chooses to use 3D.


Keep in mind though, that there are some people out there, who enjoy 3D when it's done well, and who enjoy Titanic.

And I DO believe that they show 2D versions of standard films, like Hugo. So how are they swindling you at all? 2D, or 3D, take your pick. Titanic 3D, or no Titanic 3D, take your pick.
I wanna see scarface in 3D
Kate Winslet's boobs in 3D.

Titanic In 3D: A Scam
Is there going to be a Titanic sequel? :P
I see two main points that Cinemaniac is trying to make.

1. Re-releasing Titanic in 3D is somehow morally or ethically wrong.

2. Cinemas should instead play retro films in their original 2D format.

To sum up my earlier posts, issue 1 is not morally or ethically wrong, because it is simply a harmless, lawful business matter: trying to earn money.

In regards to issue 2, I think it is wrong for a film critic to try and dictate cinema business practice. Cinemas have to, and will do, whatever is in their best interests, i.e. make maximum profit. Any other interests come second.
I must be 'easily entertained' then, condescending much?
I think you guys are just being a tad too critical in the wrong areas.

To me, it was clear that Cinemaniac's argument was based in a 'perfect world', it's obvious to all that this is the way things are for one main reason, money. But that is not to say he cannot criticise the practice and provide more feasible and fair alternatives for the viewer (why should you have to pay over double what you did 15 years ago? And don't hit me with the 'well you don't have to go see it' argument because that's just juvenile. It is ridiculous that they add a gimmick and charge above what you pay for a regular new release).

And Titanic does not deserve the outrage this has created. Opinions aside, it is no classic. [Facepalm]
Titanic a scam, seriously a pathetic article and all i read was the title. No need to read the rest because i know its all trash just because of who wrote it. You may think titanic 3D is a scam but I think your a complete sham

IAMColonel said: I think you guys are just being a tad too critical in the wrong areas.
To me, it was clear that Cinemaniac's argument was based in a 'perfect world', it's obvious to all that this is the way things are for one main reason, money. But that is not to say he cannot criticise the practice and provide more feasible and fair alternatives for the viewer (why should you have to pay over double what you did 15 years ago? And don't hit me with the 'well you don't have to go see it' argument because that's just juvenile. It is ridiculous that they add a gimmick and charge above what you pay for a regular new release).



Well, I guess this whole discussion is really a conflict between pragmatism and idealism.

chucky110 said: Titanic a scam, seriously a pathetic article and all i read was the title. No need to read the rest because i know its all trash just because of who wrote it. You may think titanic 3D is a scam but I think your a complete sham


LOL! Love you too, Chuck. People like you keep me employed - you give me an awesome reaction each and every time. ;) Keep them coming...

LMA0 said: Is there going to be a Titanic sequel?


Man, I sincerely hope not. [Facepalm]
Whilst your point is completely true and relevant - people know what they're paying for and if they choose to do so, then best of luck to them.

I couldn't give less of a crap about the 3D re-release and I agree that it is simply a money-making scheme. But it is far from a scam - perhaps the most important detail you overlooked is the fact that it's one of the highest-grossing and most popular films ever made.

This isn't really a matter to be berating people over. Each to their own.
This is the most stupid review ever. How is it a scam? It's one of the most amazing and popular films ever created. I've only seen the trailer on cinema screen and holy crap the quality itself blew me away, it's like seeing it for the first time again. The way 3D has been implemented into this film is great too, Real 3D cinemas give this movie massive justice. This rerelease is 100% relevant and needed for all this reasons plus it allows a new generation to watch and appreciate the film.

So I'm sorry but this review tells me you clearly have no idea about film or cinema. You pick on the film because it's a rerelease without realising the reasons why it is. Plus you thinking it was originally a bad film once again shows how bad your opinion is.

Cinemaniac said:

chucky110 said: Titanic a scam, seriously a pathetic article and all i read was the title. No need to read the rest because i know its all trash just because of who wrote it. You may think titanic 3D is a scam but I think your a complete sham


LOL! Love you too, Chuck. People like you keep me employed - you give me an awesome reaction each and every time. Keep them coming...


Cinemaniac said:

chucky110 said: Titanic a scam, seriously a pathetic article and all i read was the title. No need to read the rest because i know its all trash just because of who wrote it. You may think titanic 3D is a scam but I think your a complete sham


LOL! Love you too, Chuck. People like you keep me employed - you give me an awesome reaction each and every time. Keep them coming...


Really don't know how because you are blatantly crap at it. Absolutely no knowledge and 90% of your work is read another website copy it and change a few things arond. The other 10% is you writing rubbish
@Chucky110: LOL! MORE! KEEP IT COMING, CHUCK! MORE! =D

@jotendo: It's not a review - it's an article. :D You say 3D 'gives it justice'. How? Why? :S
Who would have thought Titanic would be so popular [MOG]
Because its a good movie.
I also think James Cameron's Avatar was overrated what was the metal unobtainium LAME! everyone was so caught up in the special effects they didn't pay attention to what was going on and why were there pelicans from halo [Facepalm]
What a usless article, it's just one persons opinion not fact, and we all know what opinions are like...

Atomic10 said: What a usless article, it's just one persons opinion not fact, and we all know what opinions are like...


Yeah, it's an opinion article... [MOG]
lol what's up with all the sudden hate?

Xoldelpaso said: I also think James Cameron's Avatar was overrated what was the metal unobtainium LAME! everyone was so caught up in the special effects they didn't pay attention to what was going on and why were there pelicans from halo


Avatar was just plain crap.
Only reason I'd go to see this is so that I can see Jack sink to the bottom of the ocean in 3D. [MOG]

Dénor said: Only reason I'd go to see this is so that I can see Jack sink to the bottom of the ocean in 3D.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Cinemaniac said:

Atomic10 said: What a usless article, it's just one persons opinion not fact, and we all know what opinions are like...


Yeah, it's an opinion article...

Then why write an article and post a thread about it too? Nobody else who writes articles feels the need to have to start threads about them. Anywho I'm off to see Titanic 3D, to be easily entertained.
You can't be serious...
The movie is for a target audience which is mostly romance loving women. Don't go off saying it's a scam simply because you yourself didn't like the film. If you didn't like it in the first place, then it's quite obvious you won't be going back for the 3D.
I just saw it today, and it was even better than the first time I watched it. Yeah, the re-make may be just for money, but it also gives people like myself the chance to see it in theaters that we didn't have when it first released.
The 3D effects were great, but the glasses did become a burden once I started bawling my eyes out. [Shifty]
This just in: Companies worldwide found to be scamming the public by offering products in return for money [MOG] [MOG] [MOG]

Makra said: This just in: Companies worldwide found to be scamming the public by offering products in return for money


Insightful. Immensely insightful. [MOG]
Oh don't flatter me (love) It's nowhere near as insightful as this article (*)

Makra said: Oh don't flatter me It's nowhere near as insightful as this article


My, oh my! Your flattery is too intense to handle, Mak-dawg! The article's insighfulness, I must confess, is nothing without the well-versed, expert commentary provided by users like you. You know what I mean, jelly-bean? [MOG]
Oh dear.

mordillo said: Oh dear.


LOL

Cinemaniac said:

Makra said: Oh don't flatter me It's nowhere near as insightful as this article


My, oh my! Your flattery is too intense to handle, Mak-dawg! The article's insighfulness, I must confess, is nothing without the well-versed, expert commentary provided by users like you. You know what I mean, jelly-bean?


Well, hey, at least I back up my points with sound, logical arguments. Still waiting on a response in regards to: "what exactly is wrong with a business trying to profit?".

Because that is all that's going on here. And last time I asked that, you came up with the oh-so-insightful and reasonable reply of "Titanic + 3D = harm. Simple."

;)

chucky110 said:
Really don't know how because you are blatantly crap at it. Absolutely no knowledge and 90% of your work is read another website copy it and change a few things arond. The other 10% is you writing rubbish


100% of the shit you write is rubbish.

People in glass houses, wanker.
@Chucky110: Look, Chuck, I get that you're pretty tough behind the computer screen, but in all honesty, your insults are both ridiculous and erroneous. You compensate lack of knowledge of film and TV with unqualified, vague, directionless, ill-informed and mindless insults. Sure, you can keep throwing lines like 'rubbish' and 'crap', but the reality is that you, at no point, really express why it is that 'Titanic' and 3D viewing does/not work. :S
@Chucky110 You need to calm down bro, make your point and move on.

@Pilkingbod Really? I get he's being an ass...

@Cinemaniac

Well dude you have done it again, royally pissed off the MMGN crowd lol :P

I don't like the article I agree with others here, this is just your hate for the film, nothing else.
In no way is Titanic being re-released in 3D a 'scam'. Titanic was a massive hit and with the 100th anniversary of the ships sinking what were you expecting? I think if done right the 3D could be great especially in the later half of the film after the ship has hit the iceberg.
Anything being re-released can be called a scam. lol
@Dicky: Thanks for the constructive feedback! :) The bigger question here is this: is 3D viewing necessary in Australian film culture? The 3D experience temporarily increases the price of film viewings but does not solve the long-term issue of dwindling numbers of cinema goers. It is not the format of film viewing that needs to be changed; the variety of films shown need to be balanced between retro and contemporary. I just think that 'Titanic' re-released in 3D is a slap in the face, a quick band-aid solution to increase revenue in cinema viewing, a past-time that is, unfortunately, dying. Whilst I cannot stand the feature, if it was re-released in a standard cinematic format at a normal BO price, my gripe would not be as strong. [MOG]
Isn't this being released in US and other markets too? I don't think Cameron released this in an effort to fix cinema numbers here in Australia......

Heller said: Isn't this being released in US and other markets too? I don't think Cameron released this in an effort to fix cinema numbers here in Australia......


No, not directly from Cameron, but I think that the proliferation of 3D films in Oz in the last 6-12 months, logic would say, is the result of this problem in dwindling numbers. It needs to be addressed ASAP...
Aren't the exact same 3D movies being released in the US, but US companies and film makers?

Cinemaniac said:

Heller said: Isn't this being released in US and other markets too? I don't think Cameron released this in an effort to fix cinema numbers here in Australia......


No, not directly from Cameron, but I think that the proliferation of 3D films in Oz in the last 6-12 months, logic would say, is the result of this problem in dwindling numbers. It needs to be addressed ASAP...


If cinema customer numbers truly are on a downward slope, I highly doubt showing a few retro movies is going to change anything significantly. Logic would say that the cinemas are doing what they believe is going to keep them afloat as best as possible...
@Makra: The reason why many people on this thread are arguing that 'Titanic' is great is because of their sense of nostalgia. Watching films of yesteryear interests many audiences - it's 'nostagic'. If this approach, without 3D, is applied to contemporary theatres, it may fix things a lot more than the odd retro/contemporary 3D experience. The very ticket pricings here in Oz is absurd, which explains the ghostly absence of people in most mainstream cinema houses. Affordable, standard cinematic viewings of new and old flicks could help - that's all I'm saying...
Yeah I get what you're saying, but where's your evidence? It looks to me like pure conjecture, and I'd have to say that I'm sure that cinema management have a much better idea about how to run their business than you...

Makra said: Yeah I get what you're saying, but where's your evidence? It looks to me like pure conjecture, and I'd have to say that I'm sure that cinema management have a much better idea about how to run their business than you...


It's common sense: the advent of home video watching has hurt cinemas around the globe. The following reference from SA's website is interesting to look at when looking at Oz cinema: www.screenaustralia.gov.au/... It's not uber-contemporary, but it's recent enough... [MOG]
It's not common sense, because it isn't clear why people aren't visiting cinemas any more. Only when you know exactly why attendance rates are dropping can you try and find a solution.

There are many many factors that could be playing a part in the decline of cinema: ticket prices, quality/type of contemporary movies being released (it's pretty clear there's a huge lack of ideas and creativity in film at the moment), social/cultural conditions, lifestyle (work:life balance etc), economical difficulties (cinemas aren't the only industry on the decline at the moment, interestingly movie rental stores are experiencing incredibly hard times), better home theatre equipment (if you have a 60" LCD TV with good quality surround sound you're not going to feel the need to visit the cinema anywhere near as much), availability of illegal movie downloads etc etc.

Besides, according to that study, the cinema business here isn't doing all that badly: The all-time high being 72% in 2004, dropping after that and then raising to 69% in 2009-2010.

Edit: In fact, that study shows that cinema was hit hardest by home video in the 80s and has since improved.

shiversul said:


Both Cameron and Scorsese, as Filmmakers, really, really believe that it adds more to their films.



Cameron - possibly. In regards to Scorsese, you're way off. His films, from as far back as the late 1960s, deal with questions of masculinity, Italian-American culture, redemption, anomie, violence, trauma and religiosity. If you go back and look at his filmography, anything from his short feature 'The Big Shave' all the way through to 'Shutter Island', absolutely none of his films require - or have benefitted from - 3D viewing. 'Hugo' is, as noted by Scorsese and critics alike, a deviation from the rest of his filmography. 3D is not (and never has been) a trend of his. It's a nostalgic adventure/drama, a genre hybrid he has never worked with before. In terms of aesthetic detail, Scorsese is known, for example, for paying attention to cityscape details in his New York-based films, NOT via the use of 3D.
Sorry for butting into your discussion shiv, but I had to reply to this ^.

Has it occurred to you Cinemaniac, that 'Hugo' is Scorcese's first feature film (bar Shutter Island but that was probably in development for a couple of years) since Avatar and hence the new 3D trend came out? Please don't bring up the old school 3D, that's not even worth discussing.

Oh, and I find it interesting you refuse to reply to my previous comments.

Makra said: Sorry for butting into your discussion shiv, but I had to reply to this ^.
Has it occurred to you Cinemaniac, that 'Hugo' is Scorcese's first feature film (bar Shutter Island but that was probably in development for a couple of years) since Avatar and hence the new 3D trend came out? Please don't bring up the old school 3D, that's not even worth discussing.
Oh, and I find it interesting you refuse to reply to my previous comments.


Whah? Scorsese's first feature film since 'Avatar'? What are you talking about? He didn't do 'Avatar'. [Facepalm] This is why these threads end up convoluted - people try to sound more intelligent than they actually are.

Actually, in all honesty, your previous comment on cinema attendance was somewhat intelligent and considerate. Yes, cinema attendance can be affected by many economic factors, but naturally, the advent of home video and alternative ways of watching films has affected cinema attendance. Whilst it has gone up and down, it has, as stats suggest, been down in the last decade.

Another piece of advice: make sure your facts are straight before slamming someone else. You look ridiculous when you fail to do so.

Oh, another thing: try and dispute that 3D comment I made about Scorsese. Facts are facts: traditionally, he has had no interest in 3D. If you descend into insults and vague criticism, you have proven you know nothing.
LOL. Dude, you might want to reread my comment. FFS [Facepalm]

By the way I have not descended into insults anywhere, rather you are the one insulting me because you simply didn't read my comment properly. [Facepalm]
I quoted what you said, my friend - there were no italics in my quote. Tell me - how does it feel not being able to explain yourself?
Hey, pal, I'm asking you to respond to my comments on Scorsese's work in 3D. I've acknowledged where you have been right in your criticism, but all you have done is descended into vague criticism about my arguments. I'll ask again - respond to my commentary on Scorsese's work in 3D.
Okay. So I have to spell it out for you.

Makra said: Sorry for butting into your discussion shiv, but I had to reply to this ^.
Has it occurred to you Cinemaniac, that 'Hugo' is Scorcese's first feature film (bar Shutter Island but that was probably in development for a couple of years) since Avatar and hence the new 3D trend came out? Please don't bring up the old school 3D, that's not even worth discussing.
Oh, and I find it interesting you refuse to reply to my previous comments.



Read: Hugo is the first film Scorcese has done since 3D came out.

So, who's the fool now?

AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP SAYING I'M INSULTING YOU. I'M NOT! [WTF]
Yep - you did not highlight it or italicise it previously *refer to my quote and response to your response*.

No fools here, pal - just people who stick to personal attacks when they have no arguments to rely upon.

Now, I'll ask again, for the third time: how has 3D benefitted Scorsese before and leading up to 'Hugo'?
@Makra: Yes, a comment like 'who's the fool now?' does not imply a neediness to attack or self-assert. [Facepalm] Just answer the damn question, man: Scorsese and 3D has been beneficial up until 'Hugo' how..?

Cinemaniac said: Yep - you did not highlight it or italicise it previously *refer to my quote and response to your response*.


WTF are you on??? That makes absolutely NO SENSE.

Regarding the question, I addressed that in my first post which you completely misread.

3D came out in 2009 with the release of Avatar.

Films Scorcese has initiated production on since 2009? One. Hugo.

Makra said:


Cinemaniac said: Yep - you did not highlight it or italicise it previously *refer to my quote and response to your response*.


WTF are you on??? That makes absolutely NO SENSE.


This is ridiculous. [Facepalm] It's unfortunate that I cannot sit here and discuss a person's film work with you intelligently. I've asked you five times about Scorsese and 3D and, each time, I get no response. Shame.
No, it's a shame that you completely failed to read my post correctly, blamed me for being completely wrong and misinformed, then despite me clarifying to you, you continued to ignore my totally valid post, and start needlessly calling me ridiculous then saying that I'm the one insulting you.

Okay buddy..... :S

And please read my edit above, for your 'answer'.
Okay, just to clarify: you do not have a response on how/if 3D has been important in Scorsese's cinema up until 'Hugo', right?

I have supported your view on cinema attendance as being linked to a myriad of economic factors - yes.

Dude, no one is being insulting now. I'm here aksing the same question again and again regarding Scorsese and am getting no straight answer...

P.S. Thanks for the 'edit'.

Makra said: LOL. Dude, you might want to reread my comment. FFS
By the way I have not descended into insults anywhere, rather you are the one insulting me because you simply didn't read my comment properly.

LMAO and I get blasted for making stupid comments from not reading properly. I read your post and understood exactly what your meant straight off

Cinemaniac said: Okay, just to clarify: you do not have a response on how/if 3D has been important in Scorsese's cinema up until 'Hugo'?



Do I really need to answer this? It's self explanatory!! If 3D came out in 2009, and 'Hugo' is Scorcese's first film since then, how on earth can 3D have had any influence/impact on Scorcese's work before Hugo?

chucky110 said:


Makra said: LOL. Dude, you might want to reread my comment. FFS
By the way I have not descended into insults anywhere, rather you are the one insulting me because you simply didn't read my comment properly.

LMAO and I g\et blasted for making stupid comments from not reading properly. I read your post and understood exactly what your meant straight off


Quick question, Chuck: how has 3D been of use in Scorsese's cinema leading up to 'Hugo'?

Makra said:


Cinemaniac said: Okay, just to clarify: you do not have a response on how/if 3D has been important in Scorsese's cinema up until 'Hugo'?


Do I really need to answer this? It's self explanatory!! If 3D came out in 2009, and 'Hugo' is Scorcese's first film since then, how on earth can 3D have had any influence/impact on Scorcese's work before Hugo?


Mate, the question, once again: how has 3D impacted upon Scorsese's cinema leading up to 'Hugo'? Clear English, dude.

Cinemaniac said:
Mate, the question, once again: how has 3D impacted upon Scorsese's cinema leading up to 'Hugo'? Clear English, dude.


Umm what? You can't read my clear English?

Before Hugo, 3D did not exist. How can something that does not exist impact upon a director's work.

Makra said:


Cinemaniac said:
Mate, the question, once again: how has 3D impacted upon Scorsese's cinema leading up to 'Hugo'? Clear English, dude.


Umm what? You can't read my clear English?
Before Hugo, 3D did not exist. How can something that does not exist impact upon a director's work.


????

Cinemaniac said:

Makra said:


Cinemaniac said:
Mate, the question, once again: how has 3D impacted upon Scorsese's cinema leading up to 'Hugo'? Clear English, dude.


Umm what? You can't read my clear English?
Before Hugo, 3D did not exist. How can something that does not exist impact upon a director's work.


????


Are you just trolling, or do you really not understand what I'm saying.

Can someone else please help me out here??
@Makra: 'Hugo did not exist before 3D'. Without sounding insulting: what the hell does that mean, man? Maybe you've just worded it oddly. What are you trying to say?

Pilkingbod said:

chucky110 said:
Really don't know how because you are blatantly crap at it. Absolutely no knowledge and 90% of your work is read another website copy it and change a few things arond. The other 10% is you writing rubbish


100% of the shit you write is rubbish.
People in glass houses, wanker.

Hey look it's the pot calling the kettle black. I haven't seen you write anything decent since whenever, Just quoting me and trying to insult me and put me down, It has yet to actually work though.

At dickhead (Cinemaniac) I'm referring to this part "Whah? Scorsese's first feature film since 'Avatar'? What are you talking about? He didn't do 'Avatar'. [Facepalm]"He never said Scorsese made the film. I have yet to see hugo so can't comment on that part.
*Rewinds*
I didn't say Scorsese is known for his 3D... WTF.

I said HUGO, is greatly improved by 3D. Scorsese KNOWS this.
My point being in the right hands 3D can be used to make Films better.
It is merely another tool for the Filmmaker, the fact that it ALSO makes more money, DOES NOT mean that's why ALL Filmmakers are using it.

@chuck110: LOL! You see, insults and slurs make you seem ridiculous. I won't lie - you throwing out insults and cslamming my work without any context or argument is both ridiculous and amusing. I welcome feedback, but when you descend into insulting garbage, as some other users of this site have also seen, it kills the quality of discussion.
@Shiversul: You said that Scorsese and Cameron's films (NOT film) have benefitted from 3D. Up until 'Hugo', Scorsese hadn't relied upon it - that's all I'm saying.

shiversul said:


Both Cameron and Scorsese, as Filmmakers, really, really believe that it adds more to their films.


Cinemaniac said: @Makra: 'Hugo did not exist before 3D'. Without sounding insulting: what the hell does that mean, man? Maybe you've just worded it oddly. What are you trying to say?


What does that mean? It means that James Cameron, with his 2009 film Avatar brought about a new form of 3D that had never been seen or used before. Before 2009, only the very tacky "red and blue glasses" 3D technology existed. As I said before, that's not worth considering because it was a complete gimmick that wasn't taken seriously by film makers. Hence, until 2009, no 'real' 3D existed. Therefore, how could 3D have an impact on Scorcese's work prior to Hugo which was the first film he released since this legitimate 3D technology came out?
@Makra: The argument is this: some here have said that 3D has contributed to the FILMS (not FILM) of Scorsese and Cameron. This comments implies, therefore, that previous works of theirs have benefitted from this. In regards to Cameron, I see how it has affected his cinema - 'Avatar' is a prominent example. For Scorsese, however, it has not been a feature of his cinema up until 'Hugo'.

3D has undergone much change since its inception at the beginning of the 20th century - from the classic golden era of the 1950s all the way through to IMAX's birth towards the end of the 20th century. Arguing that 'real' 3D came in post-Avatar is contentious; it's part of a larger, changing cinematic cycle.

Cinemaniac said: @chuck110: LOL! You see, insults and slurs make you seem ridiculous. I won't lie - you throwing out insults and cslamming my work without any context or argument is both ridiculous and amusing. I welcome feedback, but when you descend into insulting garbage, as some other users of this site have also seen, it kills the quality of discussion.

Your articles kill any want of people reading articles on these website. The only thing they do is get people having a go at you because of shit work

Makra said:

Cinemaniac said: @Makra: 'Hugo did not exist before 3D'. Without sounding insulting: what the hell does that mean, man? Maybe you've just worded it oddly. What are you trying to say?


What does that mean? It means that James Cameron, with his 2009 film Avatar brought about a new form of 3D that had never been seen or used before. Before 2009, only the very tacky "red and blue glasses" 3D technology existed. As I said before, that's not worth considering because it was a complete gimmick that wasn't taken seriously by film makers. Hence, until 2009, no 'real' 3D existed. Therefore, how could 3D have an impact on Scorcese's work prior to Hugo which was the first film he released since this legitimate 3D technology came out?

Actually that's wrong aswell, Digital 3D was around quite a bit before Avatar. Avatar was the first movie to be filmed with 3D cameras
@Chucky110:

Once again with the insults - what a joke. [Facepalm] Mate, how old are you? Seriously?
Well maybe when you write something good I won't insult. Though I do have to laugh at the Face palm's. I will have to do that with your articles from now one.

chucky110 said: Well maybe when you write something good I won't insult


Nah, I couldn't care less about your mindless, amateur-ish comments. It just clogs up room for others to say anything relatively normal or intelligent. When offensive comments are posted, it ruins the credibility of the thread. You can dispute articles like a normal person - it is possible. [MOG]

Cinemaniac said: @Makra: The argument is this: some here have said that 3D has contributed to the FILMS (not FILM) of Scorsese and Cameron. This comments implies, therefore, that previous works of theirs have benefitted from this.


Another, 'do I really need to reply to this' from you Cinemaniac... -_-

Shiv referred to Cameron and Scorcese collectively. Lets count how many of their films have used 3D:
-Avatar
-Sanctum
-Hugo

Regardless if you count others in there such as Titanic, I see at least 3 films there. 3 equals more than ONE film. So, one would say "their films". Notice plural?

Thank you.

chucky110 said: Well maybe when you write something good I won't insult. Though I do have to laugh at the Face palm's. I will have to do that with your articles from now one.


That's right: not now on, now ONE. [Facepalm] [Facepalm] [Facepalm] [Facepalm]

Makra said:


Cinemaniac said: @Makra: The argument is this: some here have said that 3D has contributed to the FILMS (not FILM) of Scorsese and Cameron. This comments implies, therefore, that previous works of theirs have benefitted from this.


Another, 'do I really need to reply to this from you Cinemaniac'...
Shiv referred to Cameron and Scorcese collectively. Lets count how many of their films have used 3D:
-Avatar
-Sanctum
-Hugo
Regardless if you count others in there such as Titanic, I see at least 3 films there. 3 equals more than ONE film. So, one would say "their films". Notice plural?
Thank you.


Vaguely argued, my friend - getting tired of the round and round thing. By the way, just a side note: it's Scorsese, not 'Scorsece'. Nevertheless, they're all being spoken about 'collectively'. [MOG]
Thanks, but I never actually said 'Scorsece', because you actually did a typo then. Notice the worthlessness in pointing out others typos when you too make them? Cmon. You're clutching at straws when you start criticising people based on minor typos.

If it's vaguely argued why don't you argue back? I would of course disagree with your assessment that it's vague... in fact its a very simple argument for a very simple matter. Not one we should be dwelling on. I would imagine there are more important things to discuss, but then it seems that you don't have replies to the other arguments I've made, so maybe you're just stumped for something to say now?

Cinemaniac said:

chucky110 said: Well maybe when you write something good I won't insult. Though I do have to laugh at the Face palm's. I will have to do that with your articles from now one.


That's right: not now on, now ONE.

Oh no, a spelling error from hitting an extra key. Damn my life is over. Seriously, you are a twat. And you call me childish

Makra said: Thanks, but I never actually said 'Scorsece', because you actually did a typo then. Notice the worthlessness in pointing out others typos when you too make them? Cmon. You're clutching at straws when you start criticising people based on minor typos.
If it's vaguely argued why don't you argue back? I would of course disagree with your assessment that it's vague... in fact its a very simple argument for a very simple matter. Not one we should be dwelling on. I would imagine there are more important things to discuss, but then it seems that you don't have replies to the other arguments I've made, so maybe you're just stumped for something to say now?


Mate, when you're sitting there, arguing that a director's work is like so and you can't spell their name (refer to your spelling of his name above in the thread), and you feel as though you have the authority to criticise those that know their work and spell their names correctly, I won't lie: it's ridiculous and insulting.

Yes, it's vague because people have said that their work has historically and currently benefitted from 3D when, for people like Scorsese, it hasn't.

There - a direct response to what you said.
No joke. I'm sitting here in front of the computer with a bowl of 2-minute noodles, chicken flavour (it's not meat), and refreshing this page because there's nothing worth watching on TV.

chucky110 said:


Cinemaniac said:


chucky110 said: Well maybe when you write something good I won't insult. Though I do have to laugh at the Face palm's. I will have to do that with your articles from now one.


That's right: not now on, now ONE.

Oh no, a spelling error from hitting an extra key. Damn my life is over. Seriously, you are a twat. And you call me childish


Not childish. Just amateur-ish. [MOG]

mordillo said: No joke. I'm sitting here in front of the computer with a bowl of 2-minute noodles, chicken flavour (it's not meat), and refreshing this page because there's nothing worth watching on telly.


LOL
Ditto........

Cinemaniac said:

Makra said: Thanks, but I never actually said 'Scorsece', because you actually did a typo then. Notice the worthlessness in pointing out others typos when you too make them? Cmon. You're clutching at straws when you start criticising people based on minor typos.
If it's vaguely argued why don't you argue back? I would of course disagree with your assessment that it's vague... in fact its a very simple argument for a very simple matter. Not one we should be dwelling on. I would imagine there are more important things to discuss, but then it seems that you don't have replies to the other arguments I've made, so maybe you're just stumped for something to say now?


Mate, when you're sitting there, arguing that a director's work is like so and you can't spell their name (refer to your spelling of his name above in the thread), and you feel as though you have the authority to criticise those that know their work and spell their names correctly, I won't lie: it's ridiculous and insulting.

.........

There - a direct response to what you said.


Wow. That is not a direct response to what I said. At all. In the first sentence, you continue to clutch at straws by criticising and calling it ridiculous and insulting my spelling of a director's name. Over the top much? Sheeesh. It doesn't take intimate knowledge of someone's name to know something about their movies. @_@

Fact: It is totally regardless how much of an authority I am on Scorsese's work anyway, because we are discussing the use of 3D in his films: Pre-Hugo there was no 3D in his work. Hugo, he used 3D. Agreed? There is nothing else to it, his common themes displayed in his movies or anything is absolutely irrevelant. We can argue on equal levels about Scorsese's use of 3D because there is absolutely nothing subjective or complex about it. Again, we are arguing about the use of 3D in his films. Just to restate so you don't try and bring up some other irrelevant argument, before Hugo he never used 3D, right? You may be doing post-graduate studies in Scorsese: Good for you, but don't think that puts you levels above anyone else when arguing about his work, especially when it something as objective and clear cut as this.

Yes, it's vague because people have said that their work has historically and currently benefitted from 3D when, for people like Scorsese, it hasn't.


Now, to the juicy part of your post. Allow me to quote the comment in question by Shiv.

Both Cameron and Scorsese, as Filmmakers, really, really believe that it adds more to their films.


So, straight up, we can see that you misquoted the statement. Now let me quote myself from before, because I clarified Shiv's use of the word "films" rather than "film" pretty well I believe.

Makra said:
Shiv referred to Cameron and Scorcese collectively. Lets count how many of their films have used 3D:
-Avatar
-Sanctum
-Hugo
Regardless if you count others in there such as Titanic, I see at least 3 films there. 3 equals more than ONE film. So, one would say "their films". Notice plural?
Thank you.


And thank you again. :)
There was digital 3D before Avatar. Avatar just went one step further and was filmed using 3D cameras

chucky110 said: There was digital 3D before Avatar. Avatar just went one step further and was filmed using 3D cameras


Edited my post, didn't clarify well enough.

This is just pathetic though. We've spent how many posts now on arguing about the use of 'Films' rather than 'Film'?

Something brought up by Cinemaniac of course.
@Makra: LOL! Whatever makes you feel better, buddy.

Cinemaniac said: @Makra: LOL! Whatever makes you feel better, buddy.


Another insightful and well thought out argument by Cinemaniac. Brilliant.
Going to watch this with the gf lol.

Lucky for me i get to see american pie reunion first :D

Dusty Lids said: Going to watch this with the gf lol.
Lucky for me i get to see american pie reunion first


Sounds like an entertaining evening... [Shifty]
i liked avatar [Rage]
So, how about you summarise the arguments you've been making Cinemaniac?

Honestly I don't think you know what you're trying to argue, because nearly every post of yours deviates to a new point.

So far I've seen these arguments:
- It's a scam because people are trying to make money out of it
- Something else should be re-released instead of Titanic
- Titanic 3D isn't 'acceptable goods and services'
- The marketing method behind this should be questioned because it's unethical
- Cinemas aren't screening enough retro movies
- 3D shouldn't cost more than standard movies because it's bad, and is simply used to swindle people out of money
- Titanic in 3D somehow harms society
- Scorsese and Cameron make films in 3D instead of 2D simply to make more money
- 3D isn't necessary in Australian film culture
- Cinema numbers are dwindling, 3D is being used to try and boost those numbers, but in fact they're doing it wrong
- ticket prices are too high
- home video has hurt cinema greatly
- Scorsese's work hasn't benefited from 3D
- Unless you highlight or italicise sentences in your comments, they are not valid
- Slightly misspelling a director's name means you clearly know nothing about them or their work, and is insulting and ridiculous
- And best of all... a pointless argument over the trivial differences between the word 'film' and 'films'.

Browsing over that list, I see pretty much all of them have had strong, uncontested arguments put up against them, are purely subjective and therefore not worth discussing, are plain idiotic, or are pretty irrelevant and were only brought up to allow you to avoid admitting you're wrong about other points.
"Oh hey, how was your long weekend?"

"DURR, I ARGUED ABOUT TITANIC 3D ON THE INTERNET"

That's all of you. I hope you're pleased.

Kerosanak said: "Oh hey, how was your long weekend?"
"DURR, I ARGUED ABOUT TITANIC 3D ON THE INTERNET"
That's all of you. I hope you're pleased.


It's ruining my long weekend, that's for sure.

You clearly missing some vital information about seeing Kate Winslet's knockers in 3D.
@Makra: Congratulations on taking 3 hours to construct a series of dot point arguments that you've re-worded in a tone that suits your pitch and claimed as mine, on a Friday night, by yourself. Mate, the wild claims you have made regarding Scorsese and Cameron's work in 3D have been factually incorrect and clumsily approached. This is a trend that exists in your writing, namely, your article on 'Let The Right One In' and its place in the horror film genre. On that note: good night.
@Makra: P.S. Your eagerness to win is weird, man. [MOG]

Kerosanak said: "Oh hey, how was your long weekend?"
"DURR, I ARGUED ABOUT TITANIC 3D ON THE INTERNET"
That's all of you. I hope you're pleased.


you are the wind beneath my wings


no wait wrong movie

****
LOL! The thread is done with because you have no basis to your arguments and are therefore admitting defeat. You clearly are too proud to just openly admit you're wrong.

Oh! Look. More attacks on my writing rather than providing a substantive counter-argument. Classy.

That's exactly why you've lost this argument Cinemaniac. You have no arguing skills. Nearly all your arguments are weak or empty, and you compensate for lack of factual, logical and substantive points/examples with language embellishment.

And please, this isn't the place to discuss that article. If you wish, you can make a comment over there, not here where it doesn't belong. :)

Kerosanak said: "Oh hey, how was your long weekend?"
"DURR, I ARGUED ABOUT TITANIC 3D ON THE INTERNET"
That's all of you. I hope you're pleased.


Well it's only Friday, I will hardly be online tomorrow i'm going to have fun this weekend

Remember, he does film school or some shit. Means he can never be wrong
I just have to say, that, this is one badly written article.

Mario128 said: I just have to say, that, this is one badly written article.



No shit :P

Another awesome addition to the movie channel.
More @cinemaniac !!
Another story of? Or maybe another top ten? How about another scam article to really mix up the crowd! [MOG]

In all honesty though where is the quality control on this site?

Dicky said:


Mario128 said: I just have to say, that, this is one badly written article.


No shit
Another awesome addition to the movie channel.
More @cinemaniac !!
Another story of? Or maybe another top ten? How about another scam article to really mix up the crowd!
In all honesty though where is the quality control on this site?


Quick response: 152 comments and 1420 views. [MOG] At the very most, as I have said before, re-release this soppy melodrama in its standard cinematic format, at a normal BO price, and be done with it. The film taste of some people on this thread needs 'quality control'.

Cinemaniac said:
Quick response: 152 comments and 1420 views. At the very most, as I have said before, re-release this soppy melodrama in its standard cinematic format, at a normal BO ticket price, and be done with it. The film taste of some people on this thread needs 'quality control'.



I'd call this thread a revolution to out you from your position of posting junk on this channel, not something to be proud of.

You come across to me as being very arrogant. There's nothing wrong with this film being re-released in 3D, if people don't want it don't go and see it. Simple.
If it wasn't for the Titanic's 100th anniversary then it wouldn't even be out for a limited release.
Get over yourself mate and move on.
@Dicky: LOL! At no point have I sworn or devated from my point in any of my posts and I have agreed with others when credit is due. If you - or some others - cannot handle opinions that don't mirror your own and deal with that by blurting out coarse language, to me, THAT sounds like 'arrogance'. Doesn't it? :D

Cinemaniac said:

Dicky said:


Mario128 said: I just have to say, that, this is one badly written article.


No shit
Another awesome addition to the movie channel.
More @cinemaniac !!
Another story of? Or maybe another top ten? How about another scam article to really mix up the crowd!
In all honesty though where is the quality control on this site?


The film taste of some people on this thread needs 'quality control'.


No that sounds like arrogance. And with that little gem I think it's time you moved on, why don't you go and try to write for Empire magazine, I'm sure the editors would get a good laugh out if them if nothing else.
@Atomic10: LOL! Keep the comments coming. By the way, refer to my post above: no coarse language, buddy. [MOG]
@Dicky: Yep, the 100 years might be one reason for its release, but it's not the only one. Cheers.
Just another 'dude' who thinks it's cool to hate on Titanic. I respect an opinion and all that but this is just utter horse shit. A scam?!?? A scam would be going to see this movie and not getting what you pay for. I for one like this movie and am a 27 year old male. I took my wife to a gold class session last night and we walked out amazed. The film has stood the test of time and the 3D enhances it even more. Such an epic telling of such a tragic event.
Oh might I add that I $95 for the tickets without hesitation and then some in gold class. I knew what I was paying for. Also it's the 15th anniversary of the film this year

Cinemaniac said: @Atomic10: LOL! Keep the comments coming. By the way, refer to my post above: no coarse language, buddy.


Since when did you become admin and tell ppl what they can and can't write? btw if you look properly I didn't use 'coarse langauge' buddy.
I could keep the insults coming but it's too easy, I think it's fairly clear the general consensus is that your 'article' to put it in Laymans terms seeing anybody who read this thread would get the feeling you think your superior to most on it, stinks.

Atomic10 said:

Cinemaniac said: @Atomic10: LOL! Keep the comments coming. By the way, refer to my post above: no coarse language, buddy.


Since when did you become admin and tell ppl what they can and can't write? btw if you look properly I didn't use 'coarse langauge' buddy.
I could keep the insults coming but it's too easy, I think it's fairly clear the general consensus is that your 'article' to put it in Laymans terms seeing anybody who read this thread would get the feeling you think your superior to most on it, stinks.




^This and neither did I use coarse language...
hang on here are we talking about vaginas or the titanic cos i love vaginas but hate Titanic lol [Derp]

gammaray13 said: hang on here are we talking about vaginas or the titanic cos i love vaginas but hate Titanic lol



I'm surprised you know what vaginas are :P

Dicky said:

gammaray13 said: hang on here are we talking about vaginas or the titanic cos i love vaginas but hate Titanic lol


I'm surprised you know what vaginas are


i know you dont [Facepalm]

Dicky said:
I'd call this thread a revolution to out you from your position of posting junk on this channel, not something to be proud of.


Best thing said on this thread so far.

Cinemaniac said: @Dicky: LOL! At no point have I sworn or devated from my point in any of my posts and I have agreed with others when credit is due. If you - or some others - cannot handle opinions that don't mirror your own and deal with that by blurting out coarse language, to me, THAT sounds like 'arrogance'. Doesn't it?


OMG. You call 'arrogance' coarse language? [Facepalm] By the way, yes you have deviated from your point many, MANY times. So much so in fact, that the argument found itself on the topic of what Shiversul meant by saying 'films' instead of 'film'. So pathetic [Facepalm]

Cinemaniac said: @Dicky: Yep, the 100 years might be one reason for its release, but it's not the only one. Cheers.


Yeah, the other one is for money. Remember we established there is nothing wrong with money making?

'Scam' my arse -_-

Cinemaniac said: @Atomic10: LOL! Keep the comments coming. By the way, refer to my post above: no coarse language, buddy.

LOL, seriously, what a joke. You writing this article is complete arrogance. Maybe someone should do an article on how shit this guy is at his job. Hope he doesn't get paid for this because he is being overpaid


Also. I think once this comes out on Blu Ray. It's gonna be bloody good
Hey, guys! You know what would really be the ultimate justification for his apparent "awful" articles?

Writing a better one!

Now shut up, and leave this article in the archives.

Lmao. Funny stuff. How about it being deleted full stop. This is not an article. It's an opinion

chucky110 said: This is not an article. It's an opinion


...it's an opinion article [Facepalm]

Pilkingbod said:

chucky110 said: This is not an article. It's an opinion


...it's an opinion article

Its an opinionated article. In otherwords a load of rubbish [sick]. Doesn't deserve to be archived

Does that pole have much further to go up?

Pilkingbod said: Hey, guys! You know what would really be the ultimate justification for his apparent "awful" articles?
Writing a better one!
Now shut up, and leave this article in the archives.


So... the users that are responsible for the advertising dollars that are earned by MMGN should write their own articles, because the articles written by the dude who gets paid with those advertising dollars aren't good enough?

Seems legit [Shifty]

Kerosanak said: "Oh hey, how was your long weekend?"
"DURR, I ARGUED ABOUT TITANIC 3D ON THE INTERNET"
That's all of you. I hope you're pleased.



You guys actually proved me right.

****ing losers hahaha.
I hate 3D as much as the next guy, but you clearly missed the point of Hugo if you think the 3D was purely for money making.

Kerosanak said:

Kerosanak said: "Oh hey, how was your long weekend?"
"DURR, I ARGUED ABOUT TITANIC 3D ON THE INTERNET"
That's all of you. I hope you're pleased.


You guys actually proved me right.
****ing losers hahaha.

Not really.

@milky. What if the next guy loves 3D. (jokes)
Titanic 3D = shit

Just want to make $$$

Kerosanak said:
You guys actually proved me right.
****ing losers hahaha.


Very appropriate mod comment -_-

XxmadmanxX said: Titanic 3D = shit
Just want to make $$$


Look another one. Most likely hasn't even seen it either. Just making a bullshit comment. Yep they are only in it to make dollars. That's why they spent $18 million on the conversion of a year and a half.

@makra, i was thinking the same thing but if we make smilar comments admin tell us to stop it. That's called being two faced

Makra said:

Pilkingbod said: Hey, guys! You know what would really be the ultimate justification for his apparent "awful" articles?
Writing a better one!
Now shut up, and leave this article in the archives.


So... the users that are responsible for the advertising dollars that are earned by MMGN should write their own articles, because the articles written by the dude who gets paid with those advertising dollars aren't good enough?
Seems legit


Hey, if you can prove you can do a better job, which MMGN gladly offers anyone to do, then maybe MMGN will pay someone like you to do a better job?

Can't get anymore legitimate than that, actually. I mean, the backlash from this article alone should account for something, right?

Opportunity, much?
At least that would be a genuine general article. Not a self opinionated write up

Kerosanak said:

Kerosanak said: "Oh hey, how was your long weekend?"
"DURR, I ARGUED ABOUT TITANIC 3D ON THE INTERNET"
That's all of you. I hope you're pleased.


You guys actually proved me right.
****ing losers hahaha.


This from an admin, how old are you 12? No wonder this site is going down the crapper. And this guy gets paid to write this rubbish? [Facepalm]

chucky110 said: At least that would be a genuine general article. Not a self opinionated write up


Well...

****ING
WELL
DO
IT

Jesus...
I love 3D remakes.. Just depends.. Would be epic to see The Goonies movie in 3D *_*
Lol it's funny seeing people crack the shits.

chucky110 said: Lol it's funny seeing people crack the shits.


Oh, so no rebuttal?

Yeah, you would kick arse at writing articles.

Pilkingbod said:

Makra said:

Pilkingbod said: Hey, guys! You know what would really be the ultimate justification for his apparent "awful" articles?
Writing a better one!
Now shut up, and leave this article in the archives.


So... the users that are responsible for the advertising dollars that are earned by MMGN should write their own articles, because the articles written by the dude who gets paid with those advertising dollars aren't good enough?
Seems legit


Hey, if you can prove you can do a better job, which MMGN gladly offers anyone to do, then maybe MMGN will pay someone like you to do a better job?
Can't get anymore legitimate than that, actually. I mean, the backlash from this article alone should account for something, right?
Opportunity, much?


Whether or not any members can prove that they can do a better job is beside the point. I'm pretty sure MMGN don't replace staff simply because they find someone who is more capable than their current staff. If MMGN decided to replace a staff member, they could actively seek out job candidates on their own.
Well at least I don't pretend I know how to.

chucky110 said: Lol it's funny seeing people crack the shits.


You are one to talk. You have been cracking the shits this whole article?

chucky110 said:

XxmadmanxX said: Titanic 3D = shit
Just want to make $$$


Look another one. Most likely hasn't even seen it either. Just making a bullshit comment. Yep they are only in it to make dollars. That's why they spent $18 million on the conversion of a year and a half.


oh no not 18 million dollars, however will they make a profit

XxmadmanxX said:

chucky110 said: Lol it's funny seeing people crack the shits.


You are one to talk. You have been cracking the shits this whole article?


That's not called cracking the shits. That's making a statementsaying how shit this opinionated write-up is and that he should not be getting paid to write a load of trash. I say opinionated write-up because that's what it is. Not an article. There is no one on these forums worth cracking the shits over.

Lmao. The mods on these forums are suppose to be keeping an eye and making sure nothing gets out of hand. Yet so far all i've seen is them being as bad as everyone else. Of course they are gonna make a profit. The point is they could of done an half arsed job and spent a lot less and people still would go see it. But no, James Cameron wanted to make sure it wasn't half arsed like the pathetic effortbdone on the Phantom Menace

chucky110 said:

XxmadmanxX said:

chucky110 said: Lol it's funny seeing people crack the shits.


You are one to talk. You have been cracking the shits this whole article?


That's not called cracking the shits. That's making a statementsaying how shit this opinionated write-up is and that he should not be getting paid to write a load of trash. I say opinionated write-up because that's what it is. Not an article. There is no one on these forums worth cracking the shits over.


ok its not cracking the shits let me rephase

it's call being a little bitch..

movies that are filmed normally and then later on turned into 3D are always shit

It is a waste of time and money and I wouldnt Pay $1 to go see it
Well just like what cinemaniac wrote above. That's your whiny little opinion
damn ****ing straight it is

so what is your problem with our opinion then?

XxmadmanxX said: damn ****ing straight it is
so what is your problem with our opinion then?

Your opinion is complete crap because you haven't even seen the 3D version. You are assuming the 3D is crap therefore not really valid
[yawn]

chucky110 said:

XxmadmanxX said: damn ****ing straight it is
so what is your problem with our opinion then?

Your opinion is complete crap because you haven't even seen the 3D version. You are assuming the 3D is crap therefore not really valid


No you think my opinion is crap because I am disagreeing with you

i don't need to see it to know it is crap...Every film I have seen that has later on been turned into 3D is shit, the 3D is just pointless and crap there for this will be the exact same and thus making my opinion valid

@chucky110/Makra/Dicky:
You see, this is why none of you are journalists; you're not even familiar with the format of the article. As correctly cited, it's an OPINION article. [Facepalm] Your arguments are rarely backed by fact (excluding, at very few points, Makra), only by vague, personal attacking, anti-intellectual commentary. On that note, continue arguing: 1711 views and 195 comments and counting... [MOG]

Spread the word, XxmadmanxX and Pilkingbod. 'Titanic' is a soppy, convoluted, star-driven melodrama that runs 100 minutes too long. Re-releasing it in 3D is blatant cash cow slaughtering for the sake of cash cow slaughtering; it's not just for nostalgia. It sucks! [MOG]

By the way: revolutions require the effort of more than 2-3 people that argue without fact. [MOG] LOL!

Oh, another thing: did you know review writing consists of opinions and that opinion articles rely on.............OPINION?! =D =D =D =D =D DID YOU KNOW THAT?! HAHAHAHAHA!

Cinemaniac said: @chucky110/Makra/Dicky:
You see, this is why none of you are journalists; you're not even familiar with the format of the article. As correctly cited, it's an OPINION article. On that note, continue arguing. 1711 views and 195 comments and counting...


Lol. There's your arrogant attitude again.

So, your opinion is that Titanic in 3D is a scam, yes? Well, guess what? That opinion is wrong. Why? Because a 'scam' has a clear definition, which Titanic 3D does not fit into.

Oh, another thing: did you know review writing consists of opinions and that opinion articles rely on.............OPINION?! =D =D =D =D =D HAHAHAHAHA! You guys are ridiculous!



You're getting desperate cinemanic....

Makra said:

Kerosanak said:
You guys actually proved me right.
****ing losers hahaha.


Very appropriate mod comment




Atomic10 said:

Kerosanak said:

Kerosanak said: "Oh hey, how was your long weekend?"
"DURR, I ARGUED ABOUT TITANIC 3D ON THE INTERNET"
That's all of you. I hope you're pleased.


You guys actually proved me right.
****ing losers hahaha.


This from an admin, how old are you 12? No wonder this site is going down the crapper. And this guy gets paid to write this rubbish?



Feel free to complain. At the end of the day, I may say some ruthless things, but I guarantee less people get annoyed with that then comment strands like this that pop up, seeming with ALWAYS the same handful of people.
@Makra:
Desperate? LOL! Keep commenting on my OPINION article and feel free to read other reviews on the site, as they also consist of OPINIONS, Makra. :D

The term 'scam' is subjective, Makra. It is subjective, much like an opinion, I guess. ;)

Kerosanak said:

Makra said:

Kerosanak said:
You guys actually proved me right.
****ing losers hahaha.


Very appropriate mod comment


Atomic10 said:

Kerosanak said:

Kerosanak said: "Oh hey, how was your long weekend?"
"DURR, I ARGUED ABOUT TITANIC 3D ON THE INTERNET"
That's all of you. I hope you're pleased.


You guys actually proved me right.
****ing losers hahaha.


This from an admin, how old are you 12? No wonder this site is going down the crapper. And this guy gets paid to write this rubbish?


Feel free to complain. At the end of the day, I may say some ruthless things, but I guarantee less people get annoyed with that then comment strands like this that pop up, seeming with ALWAYS the same handful of people.


you're a loose cannon kero
give me your badge

Cinemaniac said: @Makra:
Desperate? LOL! Keep commenting on my OPINION article and feel free to read other reviews on the site, as they also consist of OPINIONS, Makra.
The term 'scam' is subjective, Makra. It is subjective, much like an opinion, I guess.


No cinemaniac, scam is not subjective, or least not to the degree which you are trying to bend the meaning.

You're deluding yourself if you think all opinions are true and uncontestable simply because they are opinions. [Facepalm]

sjt333 said:



His opinion is that Titanic in 3D is a scam. I don't understand why it's so hard to see that? :S

I, for one, loved Titanic the first time I saw it. And I think some 3D effects can be good looking. But, for the most part, 3D is just plain terrible in most other movies.

I'm expecting:
1st half: 3D will add not much at all, it's just boring love stuff.
2nd half: Awesome sinking boats in 3D.

Yes, they're trying to make money from adding '3D' into it, but really, when am I going to have the chance to see such a good movie like that on a big screen? :P So I'll be seeing it this Wednesday night. ^_^

Also, the discussion on this article is very good. [MOG]
Just because kero is an admin doesn't mean he cant say shit like that...it just a internet site not politics if you are going to sook about him saying that then maybe its time you found a new forum.

Every movie that is re made into 3D is done for no other reason then to make more money.

XxmadmanxX said: Just because kero is an admin doesn't mean he cant say shit like that...it just a internet site not politics if you are going to sook about him saying that then maybe its time you found a new forum.
Every movie that is re made into 3D is done for no other reason then to make more money.


And there's NOTHING wrong with trying to make money. If there was, why does everyone go to work every day? Money-making is not a scam unless there is some deception, trickery or swindling. Fact.
At least try to keep it civil, would you..

l3ailey said: His opinion is that Titanic in 3D is a scam. I don't understand why it's so hard to see that?
I, for one, loved Titanic the first time I saw it. And I think some 3D effects can be good looking. But, for the most part, 3D is just plain terrible in most other movies.
I'm expecting:
1st half: 3D will add not much at all, it's just boring love stuff.
2nd half: Awesome sinking boats in 3D.
Yes, they're trying to make money from adding '3D' into it, but really, when am I going to have the chance to see such a good movie like that on a big screen? So I'll be seeing it this Wednesday night.
Also, the discussion on this article is very good.


because it doesnt agree with my opinion Titanic In 3D: A Scam
the 3d is apparently eh

paint me like one of your french girls

IN GLORIOUS 3D
iSR
+

Kerosanak said:

sjt333 said:




Well McGarnagle... Billy is dead!

sjt333 said:


l3ailey said: His opinion is that Titanic in 3D is a scam. I don't understand why it's so hard to see that?
I, for one, loved Titanic the first time I saw it. And I think some 3D effects can be good looking. But, for the most part, 3D is just plain terrible in most other movies.
I'm expecting:
1st half: 3D will add not much at all, it's just boring love stuff.
2nd half: Awesome sinking boats in 3D.
Yes, they're trying to make money from adding '3D' into it, but really, when am I going to have the chance to see such a good movie like that on a big screen? So I'll be seeing it this Wednesday night.
Also, the discussion on this article is very good.


because it doesnt agree with my opinion
the 3d is apparently eh
paint me like one of your french girls
IN GLORIOUS 3D


HAHA!
Titanic In 3D: A Scam
Titanic In 3D: A Scam
Titanic In 3D: A Scam
they should have made it so the guys bouncing off the boat bounced towards you

and then at the end jack rises from the deep to command the people that died in an attack against those horrible land people
To those of you who don't see how there is a problem with Cinemaniac's opinion. Read through all the comments, the answers are all there. Still I'll tl;dr for you.

Cinemaniac's opinion: Titanic 3D is a scam.

Definition of 'scam': 1. A dishonest scheme; a fraud. 2. A fraudulent business scheme. 3. to swindle (someone) by means of a trick.

Fact: Titanic 3D is no different to any other film shown in cinemas, except for the fact that it is in 3D, which is clearly advertised. Hence there is no dishonesty, fraud or swindling in the advertising or sale of ticket.

Therefore, any claim that Titanic 3D is a 'scam' is just plain wrong.

Tell me again, "oh it's an opinion article". Yeah, there's nothing wrong with giving an opinion, but when you're paid to do so, you better have a valid one.

Makra said:

XxmadmanxX said: Just because kero is an admin doesn't mean he cant say shit like that...it just a internet site not politics if you are going to sook about him saying that then maybe its time you found a new forum.
Every movie that is re made into 3D is done for no other reason then to make more money.


And there's NOTHING wrong with trying to make money. If there was, why does everyone go to work every day? Money-making is not a scam unless there is some deception, trickery or swindling. Fact.


Going to work to make a living and re releasing a movie you made millions on already just for the hell of it are two complete different things....

My main point is not the fact that is is just a money making swindle it's the fact that the 3D would be shit and pointless and there was NO need to re-vamp this crap into 3D

XxmadmanxX said:


Makra said:


XxmadmanxX said: Just because kero is an admin doesn't mean he cant say shit like that...it just a internet site not politics if you are going to sook about him saying that then maybe its time you found a new forum.
Every movie that is re made into 3D is done for no other reason then to make more money.


And there's NOTHING wrong with trying to make money. If there was, why does everyone go to work every day? Money-making is not a scam unless there is some deception, trickery or swindling. Fact.


Going to work to make a living and re releasing a movie you made millions on already just for the hell of it are two complete different things....
My main point is not the fact that is is just a money making swindle it's the fact that the 3D would be shit and pointless and there was NO need to re-vamp this crap into 3D


Agreed, XxmadmanxX. Ditto. [MOG]
Just in case you still don't get what he meant by 'scam', I drew you a picture.
Titanic In 3D: A Scam

The money loves 3D! But once the money tries to eat 3D, it finds that the 3D tastes disgusting, but it's too late because he's already being snapped out of the water.

And that, is a scam. Right there. ^
[MOG]
Titanic In 3D: A Scam
can we get back to 3D vaginas cos i will pay for that

gammaray13 said: can we get back to 3D vaginas cos i will pay for that


thats icky

you're icky
(*)

Kerosanak said:

Makra said:

Kerosanak said:
You guys actually proved me right.
****ing losers hahaha.


Very appropriate mod comment


Atomic10 said:

Kerosanak said:

Kerosanak said: "Oh hey, how was your long weekend?"
"DURR, I ARGUED ABOUT TITANIC 3D ON THE INTERNET"
That's all of you. I hope you're pleased.


You guys actually proved me right.
****ing losers hahaha.


This from an admin, how old are you 12? No wonder this site is going down the crapper. And this guy gets paid to write this rubbish?


Feel free to complain. At the end of the day, I may say some ruthless things, but I guarantee less people get annoyed with that then comment strands like this that pop up, seeming with ALWAYS the same handful of people.


I wouldn't bother complaining, if you want to come off as a moron that's your perogative and lol at 'ruthless' I call it childish but whatever.

Cinemaniac said: @chucky110/Makra/Dicky:
You see, this is why none of you are journalists; you're not even familiar with the format of the article. As correctly cited, it's an OPINION article. Your arguments are rarely backed by fact (excluding, at very few points, Makra), only by vague, personal attacking, anti-intellectual commentary. On that note, continue arguing: 1711 views and 195 comments and counting...
Spread the word, XxmadmanxX and Pilkingbod. 'Titanic' is a soppy, convoluted, star-driven melodrama that runs 100 minutes too long. Re-releasing it in 3D is blatant cash cow slaughtering for the sake of cash cow slaughtering; it's not just for nostalgia. It sucks!
By the way: revolutions require the effort of more than 2-3 people that argue without fact. LOL!
Oh, another thing: did you know review writing consists of opinions and that opinion articles rely on.............OPINION?! DID YOU KNOW THAT?! HAHAHAHAHA!


You aren't a journalist either. You think you are. This is not an article. It's your own little opinionated write up.

Cinemaniac is just too far up his own arse aswell as a few other peoples to admit he is wrong and that he is useless at his job. At least if we do it, it would be and actual generalised article. Not a self opinionated write up. Again, write up, not article.

chucky110 said: At least if we do it, it would be and actual generalised article. Not a self opinionated write up. Again, write up, not article.


I'm yet to see any evidence of this.

You know who you remind me of? The little fat kid at school who always claimed that he could do anything, but he didn't want to. Which, more often than not, meant he couldn't do it, and was quite happy to sit back hiding behind his claims like it was good enough hoping nobody would see through his bullshit.
@chucky110:.....................................................it's an opinion article, Chuck. [Facepalm] Journalism consists of communicating coverage and views of a topic in one of the following ways: print, online, television, or radio. Here, we engage in what is called ONLINE journalism. Tsk, tsk, tsk... [Facepalm]

Well, you DON'T write articles and you have expressed that you don't know the FORM and CONTENT required for articles here, yet you sit there and throw around arm-chaired criticism as if you know when all you know is how to personally attack without fact or direction. So, tell me, how can one write an article when they are unsure/tentative about what article writing requires? [Facepalm]

P.S. Opinionated write-up = opinion article. [Facepalm] Reviews in film, gaming and TV = forms of online journalism held together by balance of fact and opinion. [Facepalm] [Facepalm] [Facepalm] [Facepalm] [Facepalm] [Facepalm] [Facepalm] [Facepalm] [Facepalm] [Facepalm]

l3ailey said: Just in case you still don't get what he meant by 'scam', I drew you a picture.
The money loves 3D! But once the money tries to eat 3D, it finds that the 3D tastes disgusting, but it's too late because he's already being snapped out of the water.
And that, is a scam. Right there. ^


That picture speaks louder than words, my friend. My point exactly. [MOG]
Hey look more shit talking. Not once have i said that. You are full of shit. Goes to show a lot. Opinionated article is not the same as a write up at all.

Who did it take to have it off with to get that job because it sure as hell ain't from experience.

@pilkingbod. You know who you remind me of? A complete F'wit

Just a group of f***wits who think your shit don't stink and that your above everyone else.

How about you lot come down of your high horse. Pull each other out of your arses and go f*** yourselves

Makra said: To those of you who don't see how there is a problem with Cinemaniac's opinion. Read through all the comments, the answers are all there. Still I'll tl;dr for you.
Cinemaniac's opinion: Titanic 3D is a scam.
Definition of 'scam': 1. A dishonest scheme; a fraud. 2. A fraudulent business scheme. 3. to swindle (someone) by means of a trick.
Fact: Titanic 3D is no different to any other film shown in cinemas, except for the fact that it is in 3D, which is clearly advertised. Hence there is no dishonesty, fraud or swindling in the advertising or sale of ticket.
Therefore, any claim that Titanic 3D is a 'scam' is just plain wrong.
Tell me again, "oh it's an opinion article". Yeah, there's nothing wrong with giving an opinion, but when you're paid to do so, you better have a valid one.


Yeah, if we're going to use YOUR definitions here, definition 3 works: re-releasing a film that grossed over $1bn worldwide upon its own original cinematic release in the form of 3D and claiming it as something else, such as a 100-year ode to a historical event that it re-imagines in gimmicky, melodramatic detail, is a 'swindling' SCAM. :D

P.S. Callously slaughtering a cash cow on the back of the Titanic's 100 year anniversary and the film's 15th anniversary release suggests that it is a big short-term profit for the industry, but it is, in terms of the way it markets itself, a mindless, overly opportunistic, unimaginative business venture.

P.P.S. Thanks for your definitions. They're cute. :)

P.P.P.S. Do you mean a valid opinion, or an opinion that mirrors your own? [MOG] I think you're confusing the two...
Omg guys calm down its just an article :P
@chucky110: Can you hear that, Chuck? That's the sound of your argument crashing into an iceberg...

M@ndyz said: Omg guys calm down its just an article


I know, but the debating is so much fun! [MOG]
I'd pay to see this version in 3D - Titanic Super 3D!

m.youtube.com/...

chucky110 said:
@pilkingbod. You know who you remind me of? A complete F'wit
Just a group of f***wits who think your shit don't stink and that your above everyone else.
How about you lot come down of your high horse. Pull each other out of your arses and go f*** yourselves



chucky110 said: Lol it's funny seeing people crack the shits.

Cinemaniac said:

M@ndyz said: Omg guys calm down its just an article


I know, but the debating is so much fun!


Titanic In 3D: A Scam
What's your point. You are very good on not making a point. Thats far from me cracking the shits.
This thread has gone way too far.

@Cinemaniac

Why don't you just be the bigger man and leave these people to it? Why do you feel you have to keep defending this article? Maybe cause we're right? And it is poor?
All you have done is make yourself seem like an arrogant jerk. I don't condone @chucky110 way of dealing with things with the language but I agree with him and @makra with the way your coming across.

I think this article needs locking by a respectable admin and we should all just agree to disagree.
The only problem I have with that is this will happen again as your articles tend to suck and annoy and another is surely in the pipe line. Personally I'd take the hint and move on, give someone else the job of writing articles.
Need respectable admin for that too happen. The only two that are seem to be on holiday. Hellar and beta.

M@ndyz said:

Cinemaniac said:

M@ndyz said: Omg guys calm down its just an article


I know, but the debating is so much fun!



And this is turning into a mass debate in more ways than one.
Lol i see what you did there. :D

chucky110 said: What's your point. You are very good on not making a point. Thats far from me cracking the shits.


Oh, so you did understand my point...
Cinemaniac can go eat a big fat one

Mealtime said: Cinemaniac can go eat a big fat one

Or more to his liking suck
@chucky110 and @Mealtime: You see, cyber bullying further diminishes your credibilities. Oh, just an update: 2000 views and 238 comments on the OPINION article. :D Keep sooking - you're both excellent at it. Otherwise, go and watch 'Titanic' in 3D again (lol)...
And sarcasm is the lowest form of humour.
Cyber bullying pfft good one. 238 comments 230 of them saying this article is garbage.
@chucky110: Quick question: what's an opinion article? Just wanted to clarify it by you, as you claim that you know what is required of article writing. [MOG]

P.S. 'Titanic' + 3D = mindless cash cow slaugthering disguised as respectable retro viewing...

Enjoy!
Question for cinemaniac, have you seen the it?
He has only seen the original release

Cinemaniac said: @chucky110: Quick question: what's an opinion article? Just wanted to clarify it by you, as you claim that you know what is required of article writing.
P.S. 'Titanic' + 3D = mindless cash cow slaugthering disguised as respectable retro viewing...
Enjoy!

Might want to pull your head out of your arse. Not once have i said that. All i have been saying is you are shit at your job. Shouldn't put words in peoples mouths. Makes you look like a bigger wanker.
When doing the film, James Cameron should've concentrated on the 'before, during, after' of the tragedy, rather than delve into a rubbish 'love' triangle for most of the film.
RE: Avatar, I liked it better than Titanic, and I got involved in the story rather than the visuals.
As it's the 100th anniversary, I think that's why the studio released a 3D version.


Cinemaniac said:
P.S. 'Titanic' + 3D = mindless cash cow slaugthering disguised as respectable retro viewing...
Enjoy!



Why do you keep adding to it? You want the arguing don't you? It's pathetic.
To everyone else less of the abuse, @cinemaniac is right in stating it lowers your credibilities.
If anyone gets banned from this thread I hope you @cinemaniac are taken into consideration as you are being a right jerk and ask for a lot of what you get.
This page is truly one of the most pathetic things I have ever seen on MMGN. The baiting and the fighting and the use of the emoticons in the comments is just so ****ing childish.

Grow up. Everyone.

Both "views", using the term very loosely, have been arguing the same points for 4 days and neither are convincing the other in any way, shape or form. If you honestly think after 4 days that this will magically change, you are wrong. Leave the article alone and go post in the forums.
Titanic In 3D: A Scam
Well lock it then or delete the while thing

Cinemaniac said:

Makra said: To those of you who don't see how there is a problem with Cinemaniac's opinion. Read through all the comments, the answers are all there. Still I'll tl;dr for you.
Cinemaniac's opinion: Titanic 3D is a scam.
Definition of 'scam': 1. A dishonest scheme; a fraud. 2. A fraudulent business scheme. 3. to swindle (someone) by means of a trick.
Fact: Titanic 3D is no different to any other film shown in cinemas, except for the fact that it is in 3D, which is clearly advertised. Hence there is no dishonesty, fraud or swindling in the advertising or sale of ticket.
Therefore, any claim that Titanic 3D is a 'scam' is just plain wrong.
Tell me again, "oh it's an opinion article". Yeah, there's nothing wrong with giving an opinion, but when you're paid to do so, you better have a valid one.


Yeah, if we're going to use YOUR definitions here, definition 3 works: re-releasing a film that grossed over $1bn worldwide upon its own original cinematic release in the form of 3D and claiming it as something else, such as a 100-year ode to a historical event that it re-imagines in gimmicky, melodramatic detail, is a 'swindling' SCAM.
P.S. Callously slaughtering a cash cow on the back of the Titanic's 100 year anniversary and the film's 15th anniversary release suggests that it is a big short-term profit for the industry, but it is, in terms of the way it markets itself, a mindless, overly opportunistic, unimaginative business venture.
P.P.S. Thanks for your definitions. They're cute.
P.P.P.S. Do you mean a valid opinion, or an opinion that mirrors your own? I think you're confusing the two...


I'm no Christian but.......... Holy Mother of God. [MOG] [MOG] [Facepalm]

They are not 'MY' definitions, cinemaniac. They are definitions I looked up from several reputable sources. Now, here's a definition of 'swindle' for you: to obtain something from somebody, by deception or fraud.

So, NO, definition 3 DOES NOT work. It is a company re-releasing a product, advertising it EXACTLY for what it is. There is NO swindling, therefore it is NOT a scam. For someone who's job is in writing I can't believe I have to spell out completely basic concepts such as this.

Oh, oh, so you don't like that it's a mindlessly over-opportunistic business venture? Sounds like you don't agree with capitalism! [Facepalm] If you don't like the freedom that businesses have to capitalise on business opportunities in our society, I'm sure some communist country would welcome you with open arms.

P.S. No, I mean an opinion that has sound reasoning, logic and fact backing it up. Yours is not valid, because I have demonstrated it lacks those things. Notice I have not ONCE given my own opinion in this whole article about whether or not I think Titanic 3D is worth re-releasing? I have done NOTHING but argue based on objective sound reasoning, logic and fact. So, any claim that I'm arguing that your opinion is not valid because it doesn't match my own is ridiculous.

P.P.S. All you have to do cinemaniac, is admit you made a blunder with this article and that you'll make sure this doesn't happen again. Because MMGN readers deserve better than this article.
^ Well said, i second that.
i "like" this
Failing that, MMGN should employ me to argue with this guy's baseless opinions, to create more 2000 view articles. :P
mother of gosh this went big. 254 comments, and i lol'd all the way through.
I would have locked this over 100 comments ago, but I don't seem to have the power to edit it at all.

mordillo said: I would have locked this over 100 comments ago, but I don't seem to have the power to edit it at all.


its immortal :P
Well, I love baiting hits and traffic as much as the next guy but it's now become a cesspool of insults. If you would like to further discuss your 'argument' with Cinemaniac, feel free to PM him.
wow this is just stupid now

some people need a good kick to the head

EDIT:

Kenni said: Well, I love baiting hits and traffic as much as the next guy but it's now become a cesspool of insults. If you would like to further discuss your 'argument' with Cinemaniac, feel free to PM him.



i wouldnt really condone that, it is just gonna turn into abuse VIA PM,
No need to get really abusive towards each other guys. Debating opinions is great, that's what the site is for!

You don't have to get personal with it :)
lol just ban everyone.
Yay and we're back!

renagadez said: lol just ban everyone.


But everyone is you [MOG]

M@ndyz said:

mordillo said: I would have locked this over 100 comments ago, but I don't seem to have the power to edit it at all.


its immortal



It really is. ;O
Tano
+
I've finally had some time to reflect about this.

I understand that some people might not appreciate the tone, but at the end of the it's an article, and I must say I agree with the opinion.

This movie was released for a few reasons:

1. Titanic's anniversary
2. To help drive publicity for Cameron's own deep-sea dives, which I bet my bottom dollar he will turn into a documentary or, fingers crossed, Abyss 2.

T2, Aliens and True Lies are all far more deserving of 3D than Titanic, which is not a film I have an urge to see again.

I also agree that it's melodramatic crap. It was officially Cameron's turn into a smug wannabe humanist, and I certainly felt that he was patronising with his visual commentary on classes and probably capitalism.

He carried that smugness into Avatar, which is a frustrating rabble of a story bathed in anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-military agenda.

At least in Aliens and T2 his anti-military approach was subtle and accessible, True Lies was truly amazing satire, but his storytelling has truly hit an iceberg since then.

Seriously though, I want T2 in 3D/IMAX.
Argument started all over again?


Makra said: Argument started all over again?



It was a discussion :P

Beta said:

Makra said: Argument started all over again?
It was a discussion


Nope, it was an argument. Even if it wasn't before, it is now :P
I just want to comment in here for the sake of it [MOG]

Seriously though - it's not a scam at all if you ask me. The anniversary of the Titanic is right here, if anything it has more merit than the impending Top Gun 3D or The Phantom Menace 3D ever had.
Want a REAL anniversary event for the Titanic? Check out the special documentaries on discovery channel etc., which are actually an acknowledgement of the work that went into the ship, and rescue efforts. :) Much more entertaining and informative in my opinion.. and no soppy romance to ruin an otherwise-enthralling story. [MOG]

Beta said: I've finally had some time to reflect about this.
I understand that some people might not appreciate the tone, but at the end of the it's an article, and I must say I agree with the opinion.
This movie was released for a few reasons:
1. Titanic's anniversary
2. To help drive publicity for Cameron's own deep-sea dives, which I bet my bottom dollar he will turn into a documentary or, fingers crossed, Abyss 2.
T2, Aliens and True Lies are all far more deserving of 3D than Titanic, which is not a film I have an urge to see again.
I also agree that it's melodramatic crap. It was officially Cameron's turn into a smug wannabe humanist, and I certainly felt that he was patronising with his visual commentary on classes and probably capitalism.
He carried that smugness into Avatar, which is a frustrating rabble of a story bathed in anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-military agenda.
At least in Aliens and T2 his anti-military approach was subtle and accessible, True Lies was truly amazing satire, but his storytelling has truly hit an iceberg since then.
Seriously though, I want T2 in 3D/IMAX.


So, tell me Beta, do you also agree with this statement: "In short, a schlocky melodrama like Titanic in 3D will only entertain those that are easily entertained."?

Feel free to criticise films based on your own opinion, but do not think it's okay to denigrate other people because they like a film you don't.

Besides, are you saying you agree with Cinemaniac that the intentions behind the re-releasing of this film should be questioned? If so, please tell me (because cinemaniac has yet to answer this question properly), what exactly is wrong with a business trying to make money lawfully and ethically? As you said, Cameron will most likely use the profits to fund his deep sea dives.... and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like he's funding terrorism :S

And if you really agree with his opinion, please tell me how it is a scam, taking into account what I've already said on that matter.
Why the **** was the commenting allowed back on this? [Facepalm] [Facepalm]
@GreenThumb this is a MMGN moment of history - I don't think we've ever had an article illicit such a response.

Basically if you think this is a scam, you're a fool in my eyes.

Heller said: @GreenThumb this is a MMGN moment of history - I don't think we've ever had an article illicit such a response.


Because never before has an MMGN writer trolled so much. I really hope this article isn't celebrated, you guys should have a higher standard.

Makra said:
So, tell me Beta, do you also agree with this statement: "In short, a schlocky melodrama like Titanic in 3D will only entertain those that are easily entertained."?
Feel free to criticise films based on your own opinion, but do not think it's okay to denigrate other people because they like a film you don't.
Besides, are you saying you agree with Cinemaniac that the intentions behind the re-releasing of this film should be questioned? If so, please tell me (because cinemaniac has yet to answer this question properly), what exactly is wrong with a business trying to make money lawfully and ethically? As you said, Cameron will most likely use the profits to fund his deep sea dives.... and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like he's funding terrorism
And if you really agree with his opinion, please tell me how it is a scam, taking into account what I've already said on that matter.



No, I don't agree with that statement specifically, but I agree that the movie is melodramatic.

I don't think it's a "scam", but it's certainly a quick cash-in. There's nothing wrong with him doing that, but I personally wouldn't rush out to see it because of the 3D. But I also wouldn't be as critical of those that do.

I agree that it's just not a very good film, and that it's a cash-in to take advantage of a few things (the Titanic anniversary being one, which I guess you could say raises a question of ethics), but maybe I said I "agree" too loosely: I agree in-part with the article, that it's not a good film, and that I can't see how adding 3D to it would enhance the experience already offered.

Please don't get angry at me.
Personally, It comes across to me as a desperate move to have more hits / views on a touchy subject. It's already ran it's course, Time to let go and move on. FFS.

Criticism: You shouldn't have used the word scam. Could have used something better.
The only anger I've displayed in this thread has been when Cinemaniac totally misread one of my posts and then practically called me an unintelligent idiot as a result of his misunderstanding. Even then, all I said was 'FFS'. So please don't think you have any reason to believe I will get angry at you.

I'll reply to that later, don't have time now.

GreenThumb said: Personally, It comes across to me as a desperate move to have more hits / views on a touchy subject. It's already ran it's course, Time to let go and move on.FFS



Yeah it's pathetic really. Times like these are when I lose respect for MMGN.
I guess Cinemaniac will be congratulated for this effort and asked to come up with more crap to garner attention good or bad.
Guys, we try to never lock article comments unless it is absolutely necessary. In fact, I think we've only ever done it once.

If you think it's run its course, stop commenting :)
Probably not @Dicky - I've voiced that I completely disagree with the article. People were trying to comment, so we opened it back up.
Well I saw it, loved it like I did the first time I saw it and the 3D was perfect. Best conversion yet. Far from a scam. The article should be called why I hate Titanic. Not Titanic 3D a scam. Which it doesn't fall into the category of anyway

chucky110 said: Well I saw it, loved it like I did the first time I saw it and the 3D was perfect. Best conversion yet. Far from a scam. The article should be called why I hate Titanic. Not Titanic 3D a scam. Which it doesn't fall into the category of anyway


best thing said so far and you saw awesome

Ben said: Guys, we try to never lock article comments unless it is absolutely necessary. In fact, I think we've only ever done it once.



It is necessary. Members are losing respect for the site with things like this, Call it a discussion if you want but it really isn't.

Maybe we should stop banning people because they are keeping forums active...
I cannot help think that if the article was called something like "Titanic Sucks", the comments section would be about 90% shorter?

Beta said:
No, I don't agree with that statement specifically, but I agree that the movie is melodramatic.


Well, so far I haven't seen anyone disagree that Titanic is melodramatic, because that's not what this article is really about.

I don't think it's a "scam", but it's certainly a quick cash-in. There's nothing wrong with him doing that, but I personally wouldn't rush out to see it because of the 3D. But I also wouldn't be as critical of those that do.


Ok, so it's not a scam, and there's nothing wrong with it being a cash-in. You personally wouldn't go out to see it, but you can understand others might. So, it doesn't seem like you really are agreeing with cinemaniac?

I agree that it's just not a very good film, and that it's a cash-in to take advantage of a few things (the Titanic anniversary being one, which I guess you could say raises a question of ethics), but maybe I said I "agree" too loosely: I agree in-part with the article, that it's not a good film, and that I can't see how adding 3D to it would enhance the experience already offered.


However, here you suddenly reverse your views. :S

The idea of it being a 'cash in' has been thrown around a lot as parts of peoples arguments. But the fact is, there's nothing wrong with cash-ins if there is no misleading or unlawful conduct. You seem to acknowledge that in your 2nd paragraph, but then go on to question the ethics of it again in your 3rd paragraph... :S Yeah, some people have said or implied that '3D' is deceptive because it doesn't make the movie better, even though you're paying a higher price. However that is totally subjective - some people do like 3D more and would therefore pay more, and who are you (or rather cinemaniac) to say that they are wrong?

So yes, it is a cash-in. What product isn't a cash-in these days in our highly commercialised capitalist society? Yes, it plays on the fact that it's the 100th anniversary of the sinking. That's marketing. Every product uses marketing, so complain about marketing in general if you have a problem with it. Don't just single out one product's marketing tactics simply because you don't like that product.

So, just to reiterate what I've attempted to establish:
1. It's not a scam
2. Regardless of it being a cash-in, there is nothing wrong with the business intention.

Therefore, as long as we are not being swindled out of our money, there is nothing wrong with re-releasing Titanic in a format that many people will enjoy and will believe is worth it. If the people behind this didn't believe there was a market for it, they wouldn't be doing it. That's their business, not ours anyway. If you don't like it, don't go see it. Simple.

P.S. I agree 100% with Pilkingbod.
So do I
Besides the points already made over and over what i take umbridge to in this 'article' is the condescending tone he takes ".. those that adhere to that notion, I pity you" "will only entertain those that are easily entertained" Insult your readers, good one.


Atomic10 said: Besides the points already made over and over what i take umbridge to in this 'article' is the condescending tone he takes ".. those that adhere to that notion, I pity you" "will only entertain those that are easily entertained" Insult your readers, good one.


Yep, agreed. The writer evidently thinks he has far superior taste in film to anyone who doesn't share his views.
Yo! Commenting is back ON! [MOG] So, just to recap:

1. 'Titanic' is a soppy, overrated melodrama that runs for 100 minutes too long
2. The re-release in 3D is a revenue-obsessed exercise disguised as something that's interested purely in nostalgia and historical reflection
3. This is an opinion piece, not an 'opinionated write-up'
4. There are melodrama films that have received far more critical acclaim (but NOT gross revenue) upon their release than 'Titanic' (e.g., 'Before Sunrise', 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', etc) that have never, ever been reconsidered for re-release in 3D and they are, in a number of ways believe it or not, just as visually arresting as a boat crashing into an iceberg or Jack and Rose embracing one another

So, yes, this 'extra buck or two for a ticket and 3D glasses re-release' fits the form of something that superficially intends on doing one thing but is, in fact, motivated by and works towards something else, much like a 'scam'.

Call me a fool, agree to disagree, or agree. ;) Cheers!
*Sigh*

Clearly your idea of discussing something is to restate the same points over and over, with no reference to the points that opposing opinions have brought up. You don't address the points we have raised at all. And before you accuse me of being a hypocrite, the points I have raised have been in response to yours, and the only reason I have had to repeat them is because you refuse to reply to or acknowledge them.
I agree.
But to what?

Makra said: *Sigh*
Clearly your idea of discussing something is to restate the same points over and over, with no reference to the points that opposing opinions have brought up. You don't address the points we have raised at all. And before you accuse me of being a hypocrite, the points I have raised have been in response to yours, and the only reason I have had to repeat them is because you refuse to reply to or acknowledge them.


Repetitive? Hmm, I actually don't recall anyone here referring/contextualising their discussion on 'Titanic' with other films, like 'Eternal Sunshine' or 'Before Sunrise'. Do you? :)

* Your point: 3D re-release is good. =D
* My point: 3D re-release is cash cow slaughtering disguised as nostalgia for the masses. [MOG]

All good? Got it? [MOG] If not, keep arguing...
I saw the movie.
3D was amazing.

Whatever your opinion of the film was Cameron has proved that you don't need to shoot in 3D to make it look this amazing.

AND YEAH IT'S IMPROVED. TITANIC IS NOW BETTER.
And yeah, the movie was pretty crap, but THE VISUALS, and THE SOUND. SO AMAZING. That's why I go to a huge cinema. For the visuals and sound. I'll happily sit through three hours of cheesy dialogue and really melodramatic moments if you give me some of the best eye candy ever! Holy craaaap the cinematography is freakin' GORGEOUS. And in 3D.

Seriously. Go see it. Holy shit, those under water shots, with the particles floating at the camera. SO GOOD.

It would be bad, if they rereleased a bad film that didn't gain anything from being seen in the cinema. But they rereleased a Film that ****ing DEFINES how epic cinema can be. WHY WOULD YOU WATCH THIS FILM ON DVD. IT NEEEEEEEEEEEEEDS TO BE SEEN IN A CINEMA.

Grumble grumble.

3D was amazing. Film looked ****ing fantastic.
Rerelease was worth it.

And YES. 3D makes the movie better.
One of the VERY few good things about Titanic IS the VISUALS.

3D IMPROVES THE VISUALS. ADDS MORE DEPTH.

One of the best looking films looks better than ever now.

AND QUICK CASH IN MY ASS.
Gah, the 3D is the best 3D I've seen. Better than Hugo, better than Avatar. They spent A LOT OF EFFORT TO PROVE A POINT WITH THIS.

Lol.

I don't really care bout the article, I don't even think Cinemaniac does. It's stupid, and not even worth argueing about.

The only thing really worth discussing is whether the 3D was good or not. The movies the same. The reason for RELEASING the movie is the same. (Money)

So yeah....
I definitely wasn't scammed, and I'm one of the few people that haven't seen Titanic. Couldn't think of a better possible way to see that movie, it was absolutely stunning.
Can't be better proof that this article is wrong than that ^

Cinemaniac said:
Repetitive? Hmm, I actually don't recall anyone here referring/contextualising their discussion on 'Titanic' with other films, like 'Eternal Sunshine' or 'Before Sunrise'. Do you?



Yeah, actually, I do:

"Yeah, so does Before Sunrise, so does Annie Hall and so does Last Tango in Paris, but I cannot recall any of these features being given the sort of air time that Cameron's soppy flick has been given. "


* Your point: 3D re-release is good.
* My point: 3D re-release is cash cow slaughtering disguised as nostalgia for the masses.
All good? Got it? If not, keep arguing...


Nope, wrong, that's not my point. How do you take that meaning out of what I've said? Seriously?? Have you read anything I've said? Or did you just assume that because I was disagreeing with you, my opinion must be the opposite of yours? Quote me saying 3D re-release is good.

To repeat myself, I have not put forward my own opinion about this re-release. That illustrates what is so wrong with this article. It's not about opinion vs opinion. It's about you stating things as part of your opinion, which attempt to defy fact and logic.

My point is that the re-release is NOT a scam (which I've already proved), and that there's nothing wrong with the intentions behind the re-release. The intention is business. Unless you can come up with a good argument against business this discussion is over.

Makra said: Unless you can come up with a good argument against business this discussion is over.


I am 100% certain someone will find a way to keep this discussion going without one iota of substance.

Titanic In 3D: A Scam

Titanic In 3D: A Scam

Titanic In 3D: A Scam
Blah

That's my two cents. Take it or leave it.
Ouch. My eyes!!

If this article comes out in 3D, I definitely wouldn't pay for it...

I used to have a thing about paid admin writing (what I thought) poor, attention grabbing, ACA style articles but all that has passed now. :)

Makra and chucky, if both of you agree with Derms then WRITE YOUR OWN ARTICLES!! NOW!!! [Rage]

:E :P

Makra said: Can't be better proof that this article is wrong than that ^

Cinemaniac said:
Repetitive? Hmm, I actually don't recall anyone here referring/contextualising their discussion on 'Titanic' with other films, like 'Eternal Sunshine' or 'Before Sunrise'. Do you?


Yeah, actually, I do:
"Yeah, so does Before Sunrise, so does Annie Hall and so does Last Tango in Paris, but I cannot recall any of these features being given the sort of air time that Cameron's soppy flick has been given. "


* Your point: 3D re-release is good.
* My point: 3D re-release is cash cow slaughtering disguised as nostalgia for the masses.
All good? Got it? If not, keep arguing...


Nope, wrong, that's not my point. How do you take that meaning out of what I've said? Seriously?? Have you read anything I've said? Or did you just assume that because I was disagreeing with you, my opinion must be the opposite of yours? Quote me saying 3D re-release is good.
To repeat myself, I have not put forward my own opinion about this re-release. That illustrates what is so wrong with this article. It's not about opinion vs opinion. It's about you stating things as part of your opinion, which attempt to defy fact and logic.
My point is that the re-release is NOT a scam (which I've already proved), and that there's nothing wrong with the intentions behind the re-release. The intention is business. Unless you can come up with a good argument against business this discussion is over.



Makra, I'm really confused as to why you're arguing with an opinion article that cinematic wrote of his own volition.

I'm really tempted to write something to get this many comments, maybe something about how much I loved Mass Effect 3's ending >_>

BBking said: Ouch. My eyes!!
If this article comes out in 3D, I definitely wouldn't pay for it...
I used to have a thing about paid admin writing (what I thought) poor, attention grabbing, ACA style articles but all that has passed now.
Makra and chucky, if both of you agree with Derms then WRITE YOUR OWN ARTICLES!! NOW!!!



Hey hey [Shifty] I've written enough in the last few days to fill at least 5 articles :P

iambubsy said:
Makra, I'm really confused as to why you're arguing with an opinion article that cinematic wrote of his own volition.


Just because it's an 'opinion' doesn't mean its right! If the whole article was focused on subjective matter I wouldn't see anything wrong with it. But Cinemaniac is claiming things which are factually and objectively wrong.
Too many idiots on this site

I've read enough to come to the conclusion that:

a) This article (yes, it's an article) is written by one poorly misguided illiterate, failing to use substance in either way to form an opinion that is relevant to the actual movie (not what re-releasing it stands for).

b) Those that have involved themselves in fights during this article could have better spent their time, I don't know, doing nothing. Any internet argument has the potential to be never ending... so if you think about it, the person who cares more about this will walk away from the arguments first. There is no point arguing when you've laid out your opinions or facts and others are too stubborn to accept them.

c) MMGN has been deceived by the author, falling for what I assume was a self portrayal as a literary elite. With a single article causing so much negative response, while insulting those that read it, I really can't comprehend why anyone would allow him to keep his position. It is a poor display of discipline, from both cinemaniac, for digressing from any relevant review, and MMGN for keeping this thread open for so long without issuing consequences for those who have disobeyed the rules.

I really can't express how terrible this article is, how terrible the community has responded to it, and how terrible it is that not a single thing has come from such an abysmal waste of space on the internet.
@catemp2 Even though some of that criticism is directed at me, I have to say I agree with most of what you said. And thank you for taking the time to read through this and give a ****ing great response. [MOG]

Heller said: @GreenThumb this is a MMGN moment of history - I don't think we've ever had an article illicit such a response.
Basically if you think this is a scam, you're a fool in my eyes.



Is this the kind of thing you want to celebrate though? I see a fair bit of you guys promoting this on facebook and is this the way you want to advertise MMGN? As a cesspool of angry internet denizens arguing over the Titanic?

There are so much other quality things you can promote around the site (which portray a friendly, welcoming community) instead of this article which is essentially filled with cursing, disparity among members and essentially a spiral of nothingness.

We know this is going nowhere and it's only going to get worse before it gets any better.

Why not promote religious articles and politics? Because it goes no where, much like this article.

I believe Kenni did the right decision in locking this.

Mirage said:

Heller said: @GreenThumb this is a MMGN moment of history - I don't think we've ever had an article illicit such a response.
Basically if you think this is a scam, you're a fool in my eyes.


Is this the kind of thing you want to celebrate though? I see a fair bit of you guys promoting this on facebook and is this the way you want to advertise MMGN?




That's just pathetic promoting it on Facebook [Facepalm]
MMGN is a joke, you guys are just embarrasing yourselves.
Here's the real reason behind re-releasing the movie:

gizmodo.com/...

'Titanic 3D. Reducing worldwide ignorance, one fool at a time.' (evil)

XxmadmanxX said: Too many idiots on this site

Yes there is isn't there.

catemp2 said: I've read enough to come to the conclusion that:
a) This article (yes, it's an article) is written by one poorly misguided illiterate, failing to use substance in either way to form an opinion that is relevant to the actual movie (not what re-releasing it stands for).
b) Those that have involved themselves in fights during this article could have better spent their time, I don't know, doing nothing. Any internet argument has the potential to be never ending... so if you think about it, the person who cares more about this will walk away from the arguments first. There is no point arguing when you've laid out your opinions or facts and others are too stubborn to accept them.
c) MMGN has been deceived by the author, falling for what I assume was a self portrayal as a literary elite. With a single article causing so much negative response, while insulting those that read it, I really can't comprehend why anyone would allow him to keep his position. It is a poor display of discipline, from both cinemaniac, for digressing from any relevant review, and MMGN for keeping this thread open for so long without issuing consequences for those who have disobeyed the rules.
I really can't express how terrible this article is, how terrible the community has responded to it, and how terrible it is that not a single thing has come from such an abysmal waste of space on the internet.

Now that is perfect.

Cinemaniac said: Yo! Commenting is back ON! So, just to recap:
1. 'Titanic' is a soppy, overrated melodrama that runs for 100 minutes too long
2. The re-release in 3D is a revenue-obsessed exercise disguised as something that's interested purely in nostalgia and historical reflection
3. This is an opinion piece, not an 'opinionated write-up'
4. There are melodrama films that have received far more critical acclaim (but NOT gross revenue) upon their release than 'Titanic' (e.g., 'Before Sunrise', 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', etc) that have never, ever been reconsidered for re-release in 3D and they are, in a number of ways believe it or not, just as visually arresting as a boat crashing into an iceberg or Jack and Rose embracing one another
So, yes, this 'extra buck or two for a ticket and 3D glasses re-release' fits the form of something that superficially intends on doing one thing but is, in fact, motivated by and works towards something else, much like a 'scam'.
Call me a fool, agree to disagree, or agree. Cheers!

Now this is what you would call someone just trying to get people in another debate. He has just thrown bait in the water and only got a few nibbles but nothing big. For someone who gets paid to try and write articles and fails miserably would have some sort of standards.
Tano
+
You guys keep saying this is MMGN's fault because Cinemaniac's article is "poor". His opinion is reflective of his own tastes and is not indicative of MMGN's own stance.

And discussion, debate, commenting is a vital part of democracy and a free internet. Shutting the comment down on this appeases one group of people, and doesn't allow the author to respond to your criticisms. That's not what we want.

If you're so frustrated by the responses and the article, I advise you to stop returning to this article.

I just have to reiterate that the opinion and responses here are not indicative of MMGN's stance, so please stop suggesting that it is. If IGN shut down commenting every time comments got "out of hand" and the author responded back only to incite more conflict, every single article would be shut down......

Time to move on. This is Cinemaniac's opinion. To suggest MMGN should stop paying him because his opinion is wrong and because so many disagree is I think a pretty worrying stance to take in regards to opinion and a freedom to express as you wish.

And to suggest that we would be embarrassed by what has transpired here and that we shouldn't be promoting it is really missing the point as to WHY we've promoted it: I've shared it BECAUSE the discussion is so heated. I am not shying away from that. The fact that many of you disagree so passionately is indicative of a very passionate and committed community, and shutting down the commentary because of that I think would be more counter-productive than many of you could imagine.

This article should help explain my stance a little better:

gigaom.com/...

The last thing I want is for people to move away from this article. If you have something you say, you should have the capacity to say it. Including the author. I hope some of you can appreciate my own personal stance in that regard.

XxmadmanxX said: Too many idiots on this site



MMGN's over-all quality and public appeal drops each time there is a new comment. Doing my part for society...

Maybe, They're should have been a quick discussion in one of the admin threads regarding the unlocking of comments. Since it was locked by an Admin (Kenni) just unlocking it seems like you don't any of us to act on something how we think we should.

Honestly, it should've stayed locked, IMO.

Anyways, To be remotely on-topic, I'm going to see this sometime over the next few days and really. I'll judge it for myself with my own opinions and views.

Beta said:
This is Cinemaniac's opinion. To suggest MMGN should stop paying him because his opinion is wrong and because so many disagree is I think a pretty worrying stance to take in regards to opinion and a freedom to express as you wish.

If you're so frustrated by the responses and the article, I advise you to stop returning to this article.
The last thing I want is for people to move away from this article.

Time to move on.



I completely respect you post, Tano, but I do take up a few issues...

Firstly being that we don't want cinemaniac fired because we have differing opinions... it's because there has never been such a biased, empty, *middle finger* of an article written, and the fact that MMGN has hired him/her means that they are representing you and your website. If you want to be seen as an employer that welcomes loose cannons and arrogant, egotistical half wits, so be it. Some people were thinking about the business point of view rather than their own agendas.

Secondly, that middle part of the quote is a bit contradictory ;)

Finally, I agree. Time to move on. I've expressed why I believe this article is, as you quoted, "poor," and why, from a demographic point of view, it'd be wiser to terminate this person from your pay list so as to save the tainted image from your already disgusted users... after all, we're the ones that keep you in business.

I'm turning away from posting in this thread now, except in the likely chance that cinemaniac replies to one of my posts directly, undoubtedly displaying more arrogance with the mentality that he's a god of a journalist... [Facepalm]
Here's an idea - why doesn't someone write a response article? That's what MMGN is all about - you guys obviously disagree with the article so strongly, so why not share your views?

In terms of "celebrating it" look at it this way - you guys are actually discussing this post. Despite the flame comment in here, a lot of you have very valid points that I agree with, and it's really interesting to see everyone jumping on the bandwagon.

I agree - the article is biased and I don't feel the re-release is a scam at all.

At least you guys are talking about it - better than all the articles we post that have no discussion at all.

Fact of the matter is without discussion this site is dying, and despite a bunch of worthless comments on this post, there have been some GREAT opinions shared.

Heller said: Fact of the matter is without discussion this site is dying, and despite a bunch of worthless comments on this post, there have been some GREAT opinions shared.

The impression I'm getting is that any kind of discussion - whether it be a non-stop cycle of insults or a back and forth argument with solid points, is any good kind of discussion. This rule makes it feel like it even applies to the forums. What then, do the mods lock it or let it be because "they're not really flaming each other, they're sparking up a good discussion".
I'm just going to put this hilarity here

Get the Adobe Flash Player to see this video.

Beta said:
And discussion, debate, commenting is a vital part of democracy and a free internet. Shutting the comment down on this appeases one group of people, and doesn't allow the author to respond to your criticisms.


Have you read through every single comment in this thread? Cinemaniac has had plenty of chances to respond to our criticisms. Instead he chooses to ignore objective arguments which he has no answer to, and yet continues to attempt to justify this article somehow. That is why this thread has turned into a joke. Because the author cannot accept his own mistakes. He doesn't need to be appeased. He needs some bloody sense knocked into him. This whole debate will die down the very second he admits he was at fault, and it is entirely clear that he is. So I really can't understand why you guys are still backing him.

This is Cinemaniac's opinion. To suggest MMGN should stop paying him because his opinion is wrong and because so many disagree is I think a pretty worrying stance to take in regards to opinion and a freedom to express as you wish.



Wait, what?! Did you just say a paid writer is allowed to get away with giving idiotic, unjustified and uninformed opinions, because of the right to freedom of expression? As I've said many times already, Cinemaniac's opinion encompasses things which are wrong according to fact and logic. Look up the definition of 'scam'. This re-release DOES NOT fit into that definition. His opinion is also that this product shouldn't be released because it's only a cash-in. How many times do I have to reply to that argument [Rage] NO ONE, especially cinemaniac, has yet given a good argument against generating business. If the users are putting up sound, objective and logical arguments to prove cinemaniac's opinions wrong, and the writer cannot give a good response within a week, does that not imply that the users are correct?

And to suggest that we would be embarrassed by what has transpired here and that we shouldn't be promoting it is really missing the point as to WHY we've promoted it: I've shared it BECAUSE the discussion is so heated. I am not shying away from that. The fact that many of you disagree so passionately is indicative of a very passionate and committed community, and shutting down the commentary because of that I think would be more counter-productive than many of you could imagine.


The discussion is so heated because the writer is TROLLING us. Whether intentionally or not, he is trolling us with a pathetic, baseless allegation in a condescending tone, disguised as an 'opinion article'. Yes, he is entitled to his opinion, but we are entitled to prove that opinion wrong. A feat which we have all but achieved. The only thing stopping us from having undeniably proven him wrong, is his blatant arrogance and stubbornness to admit he's at fault. And for that someone needs to step in I believe. If the author won't admit he's at fault, MMGN should take responsibility and admit fault instead.

This article should help explain my stance a little better:
gigaom.com/...
The last thing I want is for people to move away from this article. If you have something you say, you should have the capacity to say it. Including the author. I hope some of you can appreciate my own personal stance in that regard.


I don't really think that article is relevant to this situation. That covers the issues of trolling users, not trolling writers which is the case here.
@Heller a response article would be boring as hell. Why? Because it would just be a boring academic exercise involving breaking down cinemaniac's points and methodically proving them wrong. There would be nothing interesting about it at all, especially because most of it would just be repeating what was written here. And I'm pretty sure that article would get trolled by certain members anyway.
Copy and paste :P

Chucky did a write up, I enjoyed it. Let's just agree that this article is bogus - we all know the re-release is not a scam.
Another point I forgot to bring up is this. Do you guys have no issues with Cinemaniac's behaviour? First off his condescending and elitist attitude in the article. Then pathetic attacks towards people, such as this:

Cinemaniac said:
Whah? Scorsese's first feature film since 'Avatar'? What are you talking about? He didn't do 'Avatar'. This is why these threads end up convoluted - people try to sound more intelligent than they actually are.
...
Another piece of advice: make sure your facts are straight before slamming someone else. You look ridiculous when you fail to do so.
Oh, another thing: try and dispute that 3D comment I made about Scorsese. Facts are facts: traditionally, he has had no interest in 3D. If you descend into insults and vague criticism, you have proven you know nothing.


This illustrates perfectly Cinemaniac's arrogance and stubbornness. He clearly misread my post, and then insulted me in response. Yet, he's even refused to admit he was wrong about that. Be a man Chris, admit your faults FFS. [Facepalm]

Heller said: I'm just going to put this hilarity here


lol I am so happy I came across this. Well done good sir!

Kenni said: "they're not really flaming each other, they're sparking up a good discussion".


I'm still waiting for Flame.MMGN.com
@Makra: I'm interstate, my friend - not sitting at the computer 24-7.

To reinstate, once again, there is a difference between making profit and gredily profiting from ticket sales for a film that is financially revolutionary (in sales), but critically divided. It is already hard, for some, to fork out money for standard film tickets - slapping a $1bn film, in 3D, smacks of excessive, opportunistic profiting, as opposed to nostalgic, retro viewing. My view has never wavered. :D

Agree to disagree. It is my opinion, much like Chucky110's piece is an opinion article, NOT an opinionated write-up.

Fire me? Pfft - try and generate discussion like this yourselves. It's a contentious stance, and I never denied that, but it has encouraged debate and has given Chucky110 a platform to express an opinion. [MOG] If opinions mirrored opinons all the time, there'd be useless forums.

I'll be on in a few days. Enjoy!

Cinemaniac said: @Makra: I'm interstate, my friend - not sitting at the computer 24-7.


And your point is...? I never said anything about expecting you to reply immediately. So... you still can't admit any fault? Even in regards to reading my post incorrectly and insulting me in response? [Facepalm]

Well, you know what? Keep writing factually incorrect opinions as part of your job. You might get away with it this time, you might get away with it a few other times, but unless you develop some real journalism skills, it will to catch up to you in the long run.


Anyway, regardless of whether or not your opinion is justified or correct - as a writer who is paid to satisfy his audience (or in some way generate a positive experience), it should concern you greatly that this article has provoked primarily criticism and negative responses.

That fact alone speaks the truth of this situation far louder than whoever is right, friend. :)
Is all this just for a title change or for Cinemaniac to answer "yes I'm wrong, you're totally right Makra." rather than "slapping a $1bn film, in 3D, smacks of excessive, opportunistic profiting, as opposed to nostalgic, retro viewing."

I don't understand why that answer isn't good enough? I guess he could insert a (somewhat) in the title but who really gives a shit?

In the comments though, I think Cinemaniac was probably rubbed the wrong way but will you admit that you've been pedantic and persistant in this matter, Makra? Cinemaniac isn't writting a Law text book. :P

Anyway, I guess this will blow over. :/
@BBking it's a protest against having absolute trash like this on MMGN. Please don't address me like I'm the only one against this. Just because I've been the most prominent person arguing against him, doesn't mean I'm the only one who feels this way. Many others have expressed the same opinion, albeit with less attempts at showing why it is trash.

And Cinemaniac is arguably the one rubbing people in the wrong way, with his condescending and elitist attitude.
I guess, but most his articles aren't like that.

As I read through the peice again, I don't see him as condescending or elitist at all. But in the comments I guess he does.
There have been similar situations in past articles of his. A trend seems to be developing.

Yes, I have been persistent. Because I have absolute confidence in my ability to prove that any argument he makes to justify this article is trash. Unfortunately, trying to reason with him is like trying to reason with a brick wall.

No, I have not been pedantic. That would mean I've been obsessing over tiny details, which I certainly haven't. In fact, the only pedanticism I've seen in here is cinemaniac's ridiculous criticism of my misspelling of Scorsese's name. :S
lol. I really have to say one thing now [yawn] [yawn] [yawn]. I can't believe this debate is still going. I'm not gonna comment anymore after this one
Just for the sake of smashing two rocks together to make a spark...

I just do not get why everyone has defended this film... it is just not that good. It is laughed at by many, it's culturally ingrained as the movie which males avoid and despise, but you all, presumably mostly males, defend it? I don't understand. The article's pretty spot on imo.

IAMColonel said: Just for the sake of smashing two rocks together to make a spark...
I just do not get why everyone has defended this film... it is just not that good. It is laughed at by many, it's culturally ingrained as the movie which males avoid and despise, but you all, presumably mostly males, defend it? I don't understand. The article's pretty spot on imo.


Titanic In 3D: A Scam

IAMColonel said: Just for the sake of smashing two rocks together to make a spark...
I just do not get why everyone has defended this film... it is just not that good. It is laughed at by many, it's culturally ingrained as the movie which males avoid and despise, but you all, presumably mostly males, defend it? I don't understand. The article's pretty spot on imo.


This comment..... [Facepalm]

I'm so tired of this argument so I'm going to make this as short as I can. The problem with this article has nothing to do with it being Titanic. It has nothing to do with subjective opinions. It's about calling legitimate business tactics a scam. And criticising those tactics because they are opportunistic. Get the whole story before making comments for gods sake.
No. YOUR problem with this article is about business scams bla bla. Everyone (loosely) else is about the Titanic. Refer to Titanic 3D: My opinion: "I have to say that this is one of my favorite movies ever". Which there is absolutely nothing wrong with, as long as you are aware of why you are arguing, which chuck probably was. Be wary of what you're arguing for, when you arrive with pitchforks and fire.
Does makra ever shut the hell up? this is why people need a off button

also

Get the Adobe Flash Player to see this video.
www.youtube.com/...
Does XxmadmanxX ever post anything thoughtful? No one's forcing you to open this thread or be a part of this discussion dude. If you don't like it, don't read it.

IAMColonel said: No. YOUR problem with this article is about business scams bla bla. Everyone (loosely) else is about the Titanic. Refer to Titanic 3D: My opinion: "I have to say that this is one of my favorite movies ever". Which there is absolutely nothing wrong with, as long as you are aware of why you are arguing, which chuck probably was. Be wary of what you're arguing for, when you arrive with pitchforks and fire.


Totally wrong. The majority of the negative responses have had something to do with saying it isn't a scam. Check if you want. The fact that Chucky wrote an article giving his own opinion on the movie, though perhaps motivated by this discussion, has no practical relevance at all because it is in no way connected to this discussion, so don't bring it up. Besides, he stated many times in this thread that he believes it isn't a scam. I know exactly what I'm arguing about.

Makra said: Does XxmadmanxX ever post anything thoughtful? No one's forcing you open this thread or be a part of this discussion dude. If you don't like it, don't read it.


No I do not.

Who said I was reading it? I just like posting stuffs

Problem? too bad
Mother of god. I loved the movie. I want to see it again. but honestly, everybody need's to stfu. this article is a horrible reflection of mmgn. And if you read 99 percent of the stuff i post, its pure shit. Even i realise this has about as much worth to the site as sekots.
Get the Adobe Flash Player to see this video.
This is still going? Just let this cruddy article die.
I'm tired of it appearing again and again

Dicky said: This is still going? Just let this cruddy article die.
I'm tired of it appearing again and again



But I thought it was a good article.
the titanic is a myth propagated by james cameron so he can roll around in sweet sweet money!

Dicky said: This is still going? Just let this cruddy article die.
I'm tired of it appearing again and again


well like makra said to me

no one is making you enter it and shiz so like gtfo and shiz man
like yeh man

im makra and like im an unofficial dardy ****

Post a comment

Leave a comment Log in with Facebook
  • Titanic
  • Titanic
  • Titanic

Movies Content

Which July movie are you most excited for?

Which July movie are you most excited for?

27/06/2013 Polls 18 40
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles giveaway winners
Gryllis 3 days News 6 7
Foxtel pricing overhaul - What you need to know

Foxtel pricing overhaul - What you need to know

Gryllis 04/09 Articles 11 9
Foxtel's massive overhaul makes it cheaper, more HD

Foxtel's massive overhaul makes it cheaper, more HD

Gryllis 04/09 News 1 7
PLUS7 catch-up TV app coming to Xbox One

PLUS7 catch-up TV app coming to Xbox One

Gryllis 01/09 News 1 2
Phones, 3DS & Vita can stay on during flights

Phones, 3DS & Vita can stay on during flights

Gryllis 26/08 News 10 10
Watch Pierce Brosnan play N64 GoldenEye 007

Watch Pierce Brosnan play N64 GoldenEye 007

Gryllis 20/08 News 10 20
UnoTelly SmartDNS review - Access US streaming services

UnoTelly SmartDNS review - Access US streaming services

Gryllis 20/08 Articles 0 16
Unedited Star Wars Trilogy might come to Blu-ray

Unedited Star Wars Trilogy might come to Blu-ray

Gryllis 18/08 News 5 6

Community Content

Awesome Gaming Stuff Of Tomorrow, Today! Vol. 3

Awesome Gaming Stuff Of Tomorrow, Today! Vol. 3

02/09/2014 Blog 8 0