With James Cameron having converted "Titanic" to 3-D in celebration of the film's 15th anniversary, watching the new version also points up just how unnecessary such technological gimmicks are when you have a perfectly good original in the first place.

Different people have their options for this controversial movie. Someone loves this movie, however, loathes it. As "Titanic" goes back into our lives in 3D, The Washington Post raised a great debate. It posted a vote “ Is Titanic Art or junk?” on its website. Till today, about 37% readers regard it as art, but 67% voters think it is an iceberg in the ocean of American culture. Let us see some comments.

Support Art:

amithereyet wrote: …the richness and realism of the backdrop is a really remarkable achievement, and the film is full of the kind of telling character details that so often go missing…

rowunderdca wrote:…Cameron tried some of the same tricks with Avatar: the unknown culture and masks as metaphors for the pursuit of intimacy. I think it worked in Titanic but not in Avatar….

grobinette wrote: I enjoyed it, that is all that matters to me.

flippycanoo wrote:…I didn't think this film was "junk" but it was "art" in the sense that it recreated an event on an epic and romantic scale.

bypr54 wrote:…It is definitely not junk. It is worth watching for nothing else but the scene where the actual wreckage is brought to vivid life.

support Junk:

familynet wrote: I give the movie credit that it was an excellently filmed sinking scene, but the 2 hours before that...Lord, I was rooting for the iceberg to come!
familynet写道: 我保证这一部拥有超群沉船情节的电影,但是在那2个小时之前…我的神啊!我盼着冰山快点过来啊!

klakey1 wrote: …the whole bad movie comes across as nothing more than an exciting date at an amusement park for those two people.

curmudgeon6 wrote: Brilliant graphics and special effects can't save a poorly written plot that trivializes the larger disaster.

aristofenes wrote: All I recall is Leonardo DiCaprio yelling, "Come on, come on!"