Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[DigitalDeluge24]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

In the US and Canada, Paramount made the choice to redesign the packaging for three discs and drop disc 4 entirely, losing the trailers and some bonus features

DISC THREE
29 Deleted and Extended scenes (with optional audio commentary with James Cameron) (44:40)
Parodies
- Play All (9:59)
- Saturday Night Live Skit (4:48)
- MTV Skit (4:23)
- Titanic in 30 Seconds With Bunnies (0:48)
DVD Credits

DISC FOUR
"Marketing”
- "HBO First Look: The Heart of the Ocean TV special (27:33)
- "Fox Special: Breaking New Ground" documentary (42:47)
- 7 "EPK Press Kit" featurettes
-- Play All (18:21)
-- Story Focus (2:57)
-- Actor Focus (2:13)
-- "Building the Ship" (2:32)
-- "Populating the Ship" (2:57)
-- Cameron Focus (2:28)
-- Deep Dive Focus (2:50)
- Trailers
-- Play All (19:07)
-- ShoWest Trailer (5:20)
-- Main U.S. Trailer (3:59)
-- Short U.S. Trailer (2:20)
-- Unused "Action" Trailer (2:07)
-- International Trailer (1:06)
-- French Trailer (2:28)
-- Teaser Trailer: Concept Artwork (1:53)
- TV Spots
-- Play All (3:44)
-- "Destiny" (0:17)
-- "Opposite Worlds" (0:31)
-- "Know the Legend" (0:17)
-- "Nothing You Expect" (0:31)
-- "Heart Will Go On" (1:02)
-- "See It Again" (0:16)
-- "Honored" (0:16)
-- "German Holiday Spot" (0:39)
- "Concept posters and One Sheets" gallery (62 posters)
Special Features:
- "1912 News reel" featurette (with optional audio commentary by Ed Marsh) (2:13)
- "Construction Timelapse" (with optional audio commentary by Ed Marsh) (4:20)
- "Deep Dive Presentation" featurette (narrated by James Cameron) (15:33)
- "Titanic Crew" (gag) video (17:29)
- "Titanic Ship's Tour" video (with optional audio commentary by Anders Falk) (7:36)
- "Videomatics" footage (3:13)
- "Visual Effects" footage (3:38)
- DVD Credits
Still Galleries:
- Navigation Instructions
- Original script treatment (482 pages)
- Storyboard Sequences
- Production Artwork
- Photographs
- Ken Marschall's Painting Gallery
- By The Numbers
- Bibliography

Found the discs in question on this website. So which one of these two discs is missing from the NA sets? Also, people who bought the 3D set missed out on a DVD copy of the film that was included in the 2D BD set. Sometimes, DVD copies of films have a handful of extras on them, so it might be worthwhile to find out what extras were on it for the people who want to finally complete their collection.

[Geoff D]

Riddhi and starmike got banned? Yikes

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Riddhi and starmike got banned? Yikes

What did they do?

[Geoff D]

No idea, hence the question mark

[DigitalDeluge24]

Originally Posted by Farerb

What did they do?

They transcended cringe. The latter even got so upset over someone's opinions on the Internet that he typed something like "No no you're not getting away from this scot-free" and claimed to "school" people with "facts". You'd think a 50+ year-old man would know better.

Embarassing.

[Jumpman]

Was able to snag this at WalMart this morning. Getting ready to skim through this to see what’s what.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by DigitalDeluge24

DISC FOUR

[Show spoiler]"Marketing”
- "HBO First Look: The Heart of the Ocean TV special (27:33)
- "Fox Special: Breaking New Ground" documentary (42:47)
- 7 "EPK Press Kit" featurettes
-- Play All (18:21)
-- Story Focus (2:57)
-- Actor Focus (2:13)
-- "Building the Ship" (2:32)
-- "Populating the Ship" (2:57)
-- Cameron Focus (2:28)
-- Deep Dive Focus (2:50)
- Trailers
-- Play All (19:07)
-- ShoWest Trailer (5:20)
-- Main U.S. Trailer (3:59)
-- Short U.S. Trailer (2:20)
-- Unused "Action" Trailer (2:07)
-- International Trailer (1:06)
-- French Trailer (2:28)
-- Teaser Trailer: Concept Artwork (1:53)
- TV Spots
-- Play All (3:44)
-- "Destiny" (0:17)
-- "Opposite Worlds" (0:31)
-- "Know the Legend" (0:17)
-- "Nothing You Expect" (0:31)
-- "Heart Will Go On" (1:02)
-- "See It Again" (0:16)
-- "Honored" (0:16)
-- "German Holiday Spot" (0:39)
- "Concept posters and One Sheets" gallery (62 posters)
Special Features:
- "1912 News reel" featurette (with optional audio commentary by Ed Marsh) (2:13)
- "Construction Timelapse" (with optional audio commentary by Ed Marsh) (4:20)
- "Deep Dive Presentation" featurette (narrated by James Cameron) (15:33)
- "Titanic Crew" (gag) video (17:29)
- "Titanic Ship's Tour" video (with optional audio commentary by Anders Falk) (7:36)
- "Videomatics" footage (3:13)
- "Visual Effects" footage (3:38)
- DVD Credits
Still Galleries:
- Navigation Instructions
- Original script treatment (482 pages)
- Storyboard Sequences
- Production Artwork
- Photographs
- Ken Marschall's Painting Gallery
- By The Numbers
- Bibliography

Found the discs in question on this website. So which one of these two discs is missing from the NA sets? Also, people who bought the 3D set missed out on a DVD copy of the film that was included in the 2D BD set. Sometimes, DVD copies of films have a handful of extras on them, so it might be worthwhile to find out what extras were on it for the people who want to finally complete their collection.

Disc 4. The only region that got an NTSC release was Mexico (and I had to go through a ton to get it). Everywhere else was sped up.

Originally Posted by mastafishere

Has anyone’s order from Movies Unlimited shipped out yet? They had a great promotion with 25% off but I’m starting to wonder if the trade off is a leisurely shipping time.

They usually ship pre-orders on a Monday. You'll get it by Friday but not on release day.

[punisher]

Originally Posted by Farerb

What did they do?

looked like they were going at it with their posts.....guess they got a cooling off vacation.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by DigitalDeluge24

Thanks. When it comes to films, there seem to be so many variations and revisions of each set, that even a database like the one on the website can't keep up. These two for example, are both the US set, but look different. Does your set have a code or something so I can look it up?

[Show spoiler]

No idea but it was definitely from Mexico.

I ripped the exclusive material from the set and sold it many, many years ago. I have no room (or patience) for keeping multiple sets so I rip what I need, sell and buy the newest version.

[emmet otter]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

Your arguments sound like if open matte was 2.35, and films were cropped on the sides for an intended aspect ratio of 1.78, you would be demanding the 2.35 version, even though it's not the intended aspect ratio of the compositions. You just want open matte, to see all that was shot, you don't seem to really care about the aspect ratios themselves and how they affect the compositions, how they were meant to look. Like painters making a painting, directors and cinematographers carefully choose what should be in the frame, and what is cut, what makes the composition balanced, and so on. Changing the aspect ratio destroys the intended compositions. More isn't better. I think any cinephile would understand this.

You sound like the type of person who would love to see every film be full screen in your TV by using some sort of software that guesses what is outside the film's frame, even if it's already open matte. After all, the more the better, right? No.

I was not arguing. I merely was just further explaining myself and expressing an opinion. There is no precise guideline rule that one should accept to be a 'cenephile'.

Some people like warmer tones while others like colder. Some people like the aesthetic of pan-and-scan while others prefer 2:35. Some people like matte to open matte...Some hardcore cinephiles only trust what the director has intended for their films and has loved what Lucas has done to the original Star Wars classics while other hardcore cinephiles screamed revisionism......but it is still what the director wants and sees what is right for his films. So, should we all accept what Lucas has done to our beloved Star Wars series cause that is what he intends for his films? Sometimes I don't understand the arguments over the 'director intentions' for what is right or wrong by the hardcore cinephiles

If Cameron wants to apply excessive DNR, EE, bogus grain, over dramtic color tones...whatever, then we should all accept it cause that is what the director wants. It is the directors intentions. Its his vision.

Everyone has a different view on how they like their movies and we all just need to accept this. Some people seem to have a hard time grasping this.

Just kindly saying....

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by mar3o

IMO there's nothing wrong with viewers having a certain preference for aspect ratios, just like some directors have a preference for certain aspect ratios. Too many people in here allow for zero wiggle room outside of their own opinions. I find it amazing that despite the internet opening up conversations to millions of people everywhere, people seem less tolerant than ever of anybody else's opinion.

Riddhi2011 being banned is a prime example. I feel some were being way too harsh on him. He wasn't a troll imo. He just felt strongly about his opinions, just as others in here do. He was clearly frustrated that he felt he was being bullied. Yet he's banned as a troll just for sticking to his opinions, just as other in here do all the time. I'm assuming he got banned due to defending his unpopular opinions. These days, having an unpopular opinion = troll. I can relate to how he feels because I feel dogpiled on sometimes in here, and it's frustrating.

Myself, I always respect the original aspect ratio, as that's the fimmaker's choice. Yet in a case like Titanic, even Cameron waffled back and forth on aspect ratios for different formats. When I watch vintage TV shows, my preference is always the original 4:3, as it was shot and aired. Yet I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be interested in watching a couple series in widescreen once through, just for a different experience. That doesn't mean I think the 4:3 is inferior or that it should be erased. I enjoyed the original Galactica series in widescreen on blu-ray, even though my preference is still the 4:3 blu-rays which is my go-to version.

And then there's cases like V:The original miniseries, which was shot for TV and aired in 4:3, yet the director has decided his preferred ratio is 16:9. I feel it's too cropped and it's certainly not how it was originally seen by millions back when it aired. Or Duel, shot for TV, but released later in an expanded theatrical version in widescreen. Lots of films have been released in multiple aspect ratios over the years.

IMAX ratio films are very popular, and we even have switching aspect ratios on some blu-rays. Often new films are released in different aspect ratios depending on which theatre format it's playing in.

All this is just to point out that aspect ratios aren't always as set in stone as it seems. Some films do work in two different ratios, and that's okay.

And since none of us are shooting films, why does it even matter? If somebody in here claims they prefer open matte for every release (I sure don't, but I do find them fascinating sometimes) why does it matter? It's just a personal preference, and has no effect on anything.

For Titanic, I just find the opened-up 16:9 3D version to be so much more immersive and effective, and I love seeing more of those gorgeous sets. I think it works better for this partiuclar films. I I do feel that some films these days tend to be a bit tighter than I like, with lots of close-ups that cut off too much of the subject. I don't like feeling cramped in a film.

Originally Posted by emmet otter

There is nothing wrong with having a preference of aspect ratios. Filmmakers have their preferences. My point was that visual composition is somewhere that directors and cinematographers put a lot of thought into, like a painter and his/her canvas. Each aspect ratio has different strengths and weaknesses. Scope ratios and wider are generally used to evoke an epic feel, where the landscapes play a major part of the movie's impact and feel. Grounded low-key dramas and comedies tend to work better in 1.85 or 4:3 altogether. When an aspect ratio is chosen, filmmakers take advantage of it to do compositions that wouldn't work as well in other ratios, that's why artistic intent is paramount here (and to be honest, I don't hate directors' revisionist to the extent that many people he do). But there is no absolute rule for the filmmakers' choice: It's A Mad, Mad, Mad World is a comedy and was shot in Ultra Panavision 70, giving it the same insanely wide aspect ratio of Ben-Hur!

Cameron released in different aspect ratios for TV because TVs of that time were insanely small, the black bars made the image way too small. As moden TVs are bigger, he is now all about preserving the original aspect ratio, even when he is not particularly happy about it (case in point: Aliens if I'm not mistaken).

Actual pan-and-scan is cropping the image, that's not good, especially not in how hastily it was done. Cameron was ahead of the curve by shooting his films in a way that gave him great flexibility for how they would appear in TV without having to resort to the usual pan-and-scan approach of the time.

About the 4:3 aspect ratio itself, I have nothing against it, I love it, as long it was originally planned at that. Otherwise, you end up with lots of dead space or way too tight shots.

[jvonl]

Originally Posted by mastafishere

Has anyone’s order from Movies Unlimited shipped out yet? They had a great promotion with 25% off but I’m starting to wonder if the trade off is a leisurely shipping time.

Was wondering this myself.

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

They usually ship pre-orders on a Monday. You'll get it by Friday but not on release day.

Thank you! I feel better now...

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I'm sure a lot of people know this already, but I'll post it for clarity.

When they did the Titanic Collector's Edition DVD in 2005, it was designed as 4 discs.

Disc 1 - Movie (Part 1)
Disc 2 - Movie (Part 2)
Disc 3 - Deleted scenes and Special features
Disc 4 - Feature-length making-of documentary and special features.

However, fairly late in the day, the feature-length making-of doc was cancelled.

The DVD sets were already designed by that point.

In the US and Canada, Paramount made the choice to redesign the packaging for three discs and drop disc 4 entirely, losing the trailers and some bonus features

Outside the US and Canada, Fox made the decision to keep the existing packaging design and keep disc 4, even though it was now virtually empty.

Presumably, Paramount thought they were saving money on discs, while Fox thought they were saving money on packaging design.

The contents on the discs are also different I think, they got shuffled around a bit. Does the 3 discs version only missing the HBO featurette from the 4 discs version?

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

No idea but it was definitely from Mexico.

I ripped the exclusive material from the set and sold it many, many years ago. I have no room (or patience) for keeping multiple sets so I rip what I need, sell and buy the newest version.

Do you happen to know or have a pic of the front of the box? I guess the Mexican and Brazillian versions are the same?

Also, anyone knows if the 35mm film strip given in the VHS box are the same thing they would use to project in theatres?

[Show spoiler]

[Modren]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Also, anyone knows if the 35mm film strip given in the VHS box are the same thing they would use to project in theatres?

[Show spoiler]

There's no audio encoding of any kind on that strip. According to IMDb, Titanic was released in Dolby Digital, DTS, and SDDS, which means it should have something like this running along the left side:


So no, that does not look like a genuine snippet of a 35mm print.

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by Modren

There's no audio encoding of any kind on that strip. According to IMDb, Titanic was released in Dolby Digital, DTS, and SDDS, which means it should have something like this running along the left side:

[Show spoiler]

So no, that does not look like a genuine snippet of a 35mm print.

Interesting. I wonder if the image is "open matte" tho.. can anyone grab a screenshot of this scene we see in the negatives and post it here to do a comparison of the framing?

[Show spoiler]

[eightslicesofpie]

My Best Buy preorders usually ship on Thursday and arrive Monday but this still hasn't shipped at all so I wonder if stock is low, since this exact thing happened with my Oppenheimer order

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Interesting. I wonder if the image is "open matte" tho.. can anyone grab a screenshot of this scene we see in the negatives and post it here to do a comparison of the framing?

That's not a negative film cell and it doesn't look to be from an actual print either (not scope and there's no soundtrack). Just looks to be one of those pieces of gimmicky film cell memorabilia.

[Djt31]

Originally Posted by mastafishere

Has anyone’s order from Movies Unlimited shipped out yet? They had a great promotion with 25% off but I’m starting to wonder if the trade off is a leisurely shipping time.

My CE has been shipped on Friday but the email was in my spam folder so maybe check there too. Also check your order status on their website, you may have a tracking if it has been shipped.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Personally I think Titanic looks better in 16:9 in the 3D presentation, and it's not because I think "more image automatically = better". I feel the 16:9 framing works far better for this particular film. The sets are glorious and you lose so much of it in the original ratio. The 3D 16:9 is far more immersive between the opened up image and the 3D. You're on the Titanic.

I've said before that the open matte 1.78:1 version still works for the 3D presentation and I quite like it myself. However watching the open matte version flat in 2D, that level of immersion is lost and you're just left with an image with lots of dead space and of course the composition isn't ideal.

Since the UHD is a 2D presentation, presenting it in its original aspect ratio is a no-brainer. If someone prefers the open matte version in general because they want to see more of the sets then it is a case of just wanting to see more as opposed to wanting to see the original compositions as intended by the filmmakers.