- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
Unsinkable James Cameron refloats ‘Titanic’ in 3-D
Question of the Day
LOS ANGELES (AP) - There was a time when James Cameron’s career looked as though it might join Titanic, down in the lower depths.
Before he became king of the modern blockbuster with “Titanic” and “Avatar,” Cameron teetered on an abyss as his romance set aboard the doomed ocean liner ran into production delays, cost overruns and smug talk in Hollywood that the director was out of control and going down with his extravagantly expensive $200 million shipwreck.
Fifteen years, 11 Academy Awards and $1.84 billion at the worldwide box office later, Cameron is re-launching “Titanic” in a 3-D version whose new earnings will close the gap on the film that eventually surpassed it as contemporary Hollywood’s top-grossing flick. That would be Cameron’s sci-fi epic “Avatar,” with $2.8 billion.
Fresh from his record-setting seven-mile solo ocean dive in the Mariana Trench, done while on a break from writing his two “Avatar” sequels, Cameron continues to ride a wave of success no one foresaw amid the gloomy predictions of 1997, when “Titanic” was bumped from summer to Christmas release because of production problems.
“We were the biggest idiots in Hollywood, and they already had us tried and sentenced and hung from the lamppost in the town square before they’d ever seen a foot of the film,” Cameron said. “Ultimately, it proved to be a good film, and they all had to eat their words or just kind of shut up and pretend they hadn’t said them. That kind of thing puts a lot of pressure on you as a filmmaker, and I interpreted it as just the pressure to be good and to make the best movie that we could.
“That’s when we moved out of summer and decided, screw it, if we’re going to lose a lot of money, let’s at least make a good film and not compromise, not try to rush it into theaters.”
Once the film opened, with solid though unremarkable revenue and reviews praising its spectacular re-creation of the ship’s sinking, Cameron hoped it would stay afloat through January and maybe February so that it would have a chance to break even.
It wound up making back its money many times over, remained the No. 1 domestic box-office draw for a record 15-straight weekends through the end of March, and picked up the best picture and director prizes among its Oscar trophies. Girls went to see it again and again, pining over heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio, who became an overnight superstar along with Kate Winslet for their shipboard romance.
Many critics found the love story sappy, but no one could deny that Cameron had made a spectacle for the ages, one that might have failed if not for the director’s notoriously demanding standards. Water shoots are among the toughest on actors and crew, yet Cameron was undeterred, even after a difficult time with his previous ocean adventure, 1989’s “The Abyss.”
“Yes, it was hard, but no one ever said it was going to be easy,” Winslet said. “When all the stories started emerging about how tough it had been and Jim Cameron being mean to everybody and costs over-running, I went, wait a minute, what makes these people think they can speculate about all of this? They weren’t there.
“Yes, he lost his temper, but he only ever lost his temper for really, really good reasons. Like we would spend days literally setting up a shot, and if someone isn’t doing his job and dumps water ten seconds too late, then we’ve got to start over. … Yeah, I could understand that man getting a little (ticked) off.”
Cameron’s photo-realistic computer effects on “Titanic” helped propel Hollywood into the digital age, and he continued his innovations with the underwater 3-D documentaries “Ghosts of the Abyss” and “Aliens of the Deep.”
It took 12 years for his next dramatic feature to hit theaters, the sci-fi sensation “Avatar,” whose success turned the new novelty of digital 3-D into a frenzy for Hollywood. Studios hurtled into 3-D action shoots or, to the dismay of fans and critics, did hasty, ugly 3-D conversions of 2-D movies that gave the format a bad rap.
As “Avatar” set the standard for movies shot in 3-D, “Titanic” may raise the bar for movies converted from 2-D. Distributors 20th Century Fox and Paramount spent $18 million on the conversion and digital remastering, with Cameron overseeing a team of 300 people who spent 60 weeks on a frame-by-frame reconstruction to add the illusion of depth.
The results are dazzling, the images of the shipwreck now presented as though the audience is right there watching alongside.
TWT Video Picks
President wants everyone but himself to pay more
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- U.S. evacuates embassy in Libya amid violent clashes between militias
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Obama: U.S. should 'embrace an economic patriotism that says we rise or fall together'
- Ted Nugent loses second casino gig for 'racist remarks'
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
- EDITORIAL: Obama's 'economic patriotism' means higher taxes
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq