By Katlyn Moncada, A&E Editor
When “Titanic” was released in 1997, it swept the nation, won 11 Oscars and made $1.8 billion worldwide.
Fifteen years later, James Cameron’s beloved romantic tragedy will be launched in 3-D format.
Is Cameron vying for a fresh audience or is this just a strategy for moneymaking?
Cameron is no stranger to 3-D. It was Cameron’s “Avatar” that was a first successful attempt at using 3-D effects. “Avatar” still has the No. 1 record for the best box-office earnings of all time.
Since “Avatar,” films have sprouted in 3-D for almost every genre in efforts to beat the box-office record, but have been unsuccessful so far.
After “The Lion King” made $92.4 million at the box office, the Disney classic sparked the up-and-coming trend of films reappearing in theaters.
“Star Wars: Episode I” was the most recent to premiere in 3-D, and creator George Lucas has planned to reproduce all six films in this format.
“The fact that ‘Star Wars’ — and other Disney classics — are being rereleased as 3-D versions of their original selves gives my generation a chance at reliving our childhood in the theater,” said Allison Bucknell, sophomore English major. “And the younger generation (receives) a chance to see the classics as if they were being released for the first time.”
Even though classic, popular films like these received opportunity to acquire a new fan base, 3-D remakes revealed apprehensions for some.
“As a lover of film, this trend concerns me,” said Ben Wright, sophomore digital media studies major and Union Film Society president. “By rerunning previously successful movies in 3-D, (Hollywood is) making the declaration of profit over quality.”
Wright also pointed out that some films could be worthwhile produced in 3-D.
“Just because Avatar was acclaimed and successful in 3-D does not give the studios the right to just rerelease any blockbuster hit in 3-D,” Wright said.
According to the National Association of Theatre Owners, the average cost of a movie ticket in 2011 was $7.93. Currently, there is usually an extra $3 tacked on to the cost for 3-D movies in order to cover the cost of the glasses.
These films are already well-liked by several people. Wright said many people already own these movies, but “for whatever reason they are willing to pay to watch it again with the 3-D effect.”
Even though it seems Hollywood may be taking the easy route to make fast money by rereleasing classic films in 3-D, the audiences still wind up in the theater to watch them again on the big screen.
