>There's a lot of opinion in this: "they supposedly showed the better 1.78:1" >By creating the 1.78, there is picture that has been cropped out and is no longe

>There's a lot of opinion in this: "they supposedly showed the better 1.78:1" >By creating the 1.78, there is picture that has been cropped out and is no longer visible. The director/DP shot it in the original aspect for a reason. To create the non-OAR version, compromises were made. To say that the cropped version is better is a heavy bit of opinion to say the least. Good point, this assertion came from my research into this new version before selecting the theaters I was going to see the film in. The consensus appears to be that the 2.39:1 version is not ideal and there was disappointment in people who had gone to see the film to discover that it is not 1.78:1 on places like several subreddits(imax, titanic, amc and some more) as well as some discord chat rooms that focus on movie quality. >Wow, just so much wow. Yes, let's never watch a movie because it is older. That's like saying, never read a book that wasn't released in the past couple of years. You're cutting out a large percentage of material based on some very strange criteria. Man this is one loaded comment. The OP was asking if the titanic was any good. I merely suggested that if they are not interested in old films that it wouldn't make sense to check this one out. In hindsight it is an obvious point so maybe I shouldn't have made it but your response makes a lot of assumptions about what I intended with my comment.