It's hard enough
It's hard enough to suspend disbelief that episode 1 is a good film. '3D' will make it impossible.
Lucasfilm has finally announced that all six Star Wars films will get the 3D treatment, starting with Episode I: The Phantom Menace, due to hit tridimensional screens in 2012. John Knoll, visual effects supervisor at Lucasfilm's Industrial Light & Magic, insisted he's "committed to ensuring that the 3D conversion delivers …
So will the 3D version actually just be the 2D version with some superimposed flies buzzing around in the foreground?
I watched Avitar in 3D because my misses wanted to. I watched Resident Evil in 3D because there was no 2D. I've watched 3D videos before, and they are impressive, but 3D films just seem to be hollywood wanting to stamp 3D all over it.
The whole fight between the robots and Jar Jar's people is pure CGI, so easy enough to re-render in 3D.
The classic ones will be harder, unless they filmed the original scenes in stereo vision. They can re-do the space battles and the walkers, but the pub scene in 4 won't benefit much, unless they use your fly example.
There is a lot of crap out there being marketed under the 3D banner but turning out to be a pile of crap (eg The Hole)
Adding 3D is just another way of turd polishing. No mater how good a shine, its still a turd.
If you're talking about people who take video cameras into the cinema, surely the only change they'd need to make is to stick a polarising filter over the camera lens. Given that they hand out these filters to everyone who goes to such movies, this can't be much of an expense.
If they have to do this shit to Star Wars, best to start at the beginning and Do Ep4 first. Who the feck wants to see a Naboo fighter in 3D when Star Wars 3D should be all about X-Wings and TIE Fighters? And they're more likely to raise money with a 3D Ep4 than Ep1. I suppose as long as they cover the 3D'ing costs, the second will follow on, and by the time they get to Ep4 the process will be polished...
The problem with 3D'ing a 2D movie is that it looks like several layers of 2D images at different depths, rather than a 3D image. How are they going to get around that?
I reckon the main reason for rehashing I-III first is precisely because it's hard to 3D an already 2D live action film. Episodes I-III are pretty much entirely green screen with no real stage to convert. 2D actors in a 3D virtual stage is probably quite easy to achieve - we don't tend to perceive minor differences in Z-depth that people would produce.
Agreement there is. Pile of steaming space-ostrich crap redemption by addition of 3rd "D" not possible is.
Suggestion: Start by removing all the "improved" footage from Star Wars (no part, no subtitle), then reprocess to enhance into a 3D version of that.
Or better still, don't bother. Just use the money to make something original and watchable, and hire someone who knows how to write dialogue this time.
If the worst movie drags people to the box office the other ones will be sure-fire winners for them. Lucas is probably bank-rolling this one himself, but if it works he'll be beating investors off with the proverbial sh*tty stick for the others.
Next excuse for a rehash will probably be the digital download version, but that will have to wait until the current format wars settle down first, at the moment each service and format is pretty much tied to one supplier.
The Star Wars franchise is to video what the Beatles franchise is to audio - you can be fairly sure you'll see it on any new format once the format is sufficiently established.
...Worst film? Surely not.
Lucas's love scenes from episode 2 and the wonderfully designed costumes that look only valugly OK when ripped lots... they win the crown for the next one.
Unless hordes of folk turn up for the first one, they will have nearly no one show for the 2nd.
I have to say, before I clicked on the link, I had assumed it was ep. 4 that they were putting on 3D first. My mouth was agape in 1977 (I was only 16) when that opening shot of a federation battle cruiser closing on Leia's ship occurred. That, in 3D could be good. Really not sure about putting the earlier episodes (later films) is at all a good thing.
A bad movie in 3D is still a bad movie. I really, really wish Lucas had stopped with the original trilogy, which is a true classic. The Phantom Menace was barely watchable (the worst thing is, it destroyed the majesty of The Force by the inane midichlorian explanation), and its successors went steadily downhill from there.
>I expect this to be as much fun for people that have not experienced Star Wars as it was for people who were there in 1977 staring at the screen with mouth agape.<
Except, it won't be the star wars released in '77 but the crappy trilogy that came after the seminal original films. So assuming two years between releases that means 2018 before 'A new hope' gets 3D'ised. Also, that frenetic flight thru the city and the later pod race will be vomit inducing in 3D - unless all the CGI shots (ie 98% of the film) are going to be redone.
Southpark kids crying over how Spielberg and Lucas raped Indiana Jones - lol.
But is is the first film in the series. Or the fourth, depending on how you regard it.
Like a lot of geeky parents, I am still torn as to whether to show my offspring the films in the "Episode IV, V, VI, I, II, III" or "I, II, III, IV, V, VI" order. I'm actually warming to the idea of just going with IV, V and VI and pretending that the other three films don't exist.. just in the same way that they never made a sequel to The Matrix, and there are only two films in the Alien series..
"only two, maybe three Terminator movies, depending on your PoV of T IV"
TWO! There were only ever TWO Terminator movies. God help anyone in my vicinity who tries to claim otherwise.
When you start making gay/wonderbra jokes with walking killing machines, you have officially fucked up the franchise.
I am in the same boat as you are. My son isn't 1 year old yet, so I have time before he'll watch those movies, but I already did a bit of research into it. Someone online suggested the following order:
A New Hope
The Empire Strikes Back
Attack of the Clones
Revenge of the Sith
Return of the Jedi
Doing it in (movie) chronological order spoils the fun (you know about Luke & Leia being siblings, that midichlorians are the source of the force, etc). Doing it in (release) chronological order hurts all over as you know well. The order above seems to be a nice compromise.
Having just watched the new one's again it's just shocking how useless drab flat and unimaginative they are. Will 3D make any difference?
still one good thing to come of this garbage was the following which are more entertaining than the film's ever could be.
Phantom Menace the worst? Not by a long shot. That's got to go to Attack of the Clones, which - while some of the battle scenes were good, and the Obi-Wan/Jango Fett story line was excellent, was dragged into the realms of the dreadful by the tawdry and turgid "love scenes" between Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman.
In fact, on much the same grounds, I would say that Revenge of the Sith is a credible candidate for second-worst. By contrast, The Phantom Menace has the least overplayed acting, and the best relationships between the characters of the prequels.
Accordingly, The Phantom Menace - which is a proper kids' movie - is only the third worst.
And I wonder how long those of us who enjoyed the Star Wars movies AS children will continue to cling onto the notion that they're the very best of all time, in consideration of the fact that there are better movies coming out of studios like Pixar. George Lucas has made a biblical quantity of money through the marketing of rose tinted glasses.
3d really sucks, and the studios are just using 3d as a way to justify huge price hikes and eventually a way to force us all yet again to replace all our audio/video equipment and repurchase all our media by blocking what we already own.
oo 3d star wars, when is the 3d special edition, & 3d directors cut going to be released fu***ng corporate c**ts double, triple, quadruple dipping.............
the 3D movies ive seen so far are more concerned with elongated scenes that are put there to exaggerate the effects of 3D & have ruined the flow of the films, im not buying into that thanks MPAA (Sony, Disney, Fox(News Corp), Warner, Universal).
3D will be short lived with a peaceful lull back to normal 2D until the next 3D technology comes along and it all starts up again.
Personally I find the "wow" factor only in the first 10 minutes of a 3D film. After that my brain settles down and there's no more wow, my brain is focused on the story. As one of my eyes is slightly lazy I find 3D films a bit blurry compared to normal 2D.
I will not be going out to see any 3D Star Wars films. Can't Lucas use his money to instead write and produce Episode VII? Surely there is room for another story?
Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill are too old now.
And because Lucas cashed those chips in when he allowed a bunch of cheap hack paperback writers to create a series of follow-on novels. And a bunch of cheap hack comic writers to create an independent series of follow-on comics. And then allowed the cheap hack comic writers to rewrite the cheap hack paperbacks into one single continuous comic-book "canon", involving characters from the films who weren't even in the films.
With this deft move, he made it impossible to write new films that wouldn't p!ss off the fanboys who'd bought into the cheap hack sci-fis, and writing films based on the cheap hack fiction would result in something even less appealing than the prequel trilogy.
Dear god, *another* version of Star Wars? Put down the stick, George - the horse is well and truly dead. Someone really ought to enforce Mr Lucas's retirement - no amount of re-hashing or technology of dubious value can hide the fact that it's been a long time since he's done anything even vaguely decent.
I don't see how this is going to be good. The 3 prequels are utter drivel to begin with (esp Phantom Menace) and I'm not sure how much I want to see 3D Ewoks either.
As I understand it proper made for 3D films are shot with cameras with little focal length (or animated) so that everything is in focus. Converted to 3D films don't really work (and bring on headaches) because everything looks almost 3D but you can't focus on everything on the screen because the camera wasn't focused on everything. I don't see any techniques which could bring everything into focus in the original films other than CGI....
I would hope also that they would use the original films rather than the "special edition" with added shit CGI....but it is Lucas..
'people who were there in 1977 staring at the screen with mouth agape.'
wondering, presumably, how this trite storyline with its many contradictions (advanced weapons you have to target by hand, explosions in space making a noise etc. etc.) could have been considered interesting enough to make a whole series of films out of.
Still, I understand some people like them...
I am sick and tired of Lucas rehashing these old turkeys every chance he gets.
Add a little here and pretend it's a completely different movie.
I did enjoy the first one when I was a kid but got bored quite quickly and now I'm just fed up of hearing about another re-release.
It isn't like he's short of a few quid and needs to wring the last few drops of blood out of the, surely pissed off, fanboys.
3d is a fad and sucks, films made for 3d don't make good 2d films because the bits that are meant to fly out just look wierd and now they are taking six films filmed long before things like CGI existed and trying to shoe horn 3d out of them.
Blatant money making exercise.
Maybe the fat-necked greedy git* can do a bit of turd polishing and remove pretty much all screen appearances by Jar-Jar?
* Incidentally, my wife has already threatened me about giving him more money by buying the set *again* (on Blu-ray). After two sets of EP4-6 ("original" and "Greedo shot first" versions) on VHS and all 6 on DVD, I think she has a point.
George must want to build that expansion on his house. Either that or he needs another private jet.
Sad thing is that a lot of Fanboys will go watch this just because they have to see if it is as bad as it was the first time round. Me, I'm going to wait for it to come to tv.. you know, cause 3d tv's will be the standard by then.
Does this mean that the BD release will be delayed so that he can release a 3D-BD version? Who am I trying to kid? He'll release both of course.
When my son's old enough for the films I'm only showing him IV,V and VI any way. The other three were toilet and I'd rather watch Ewok Adventure again than those.
Lucas has already destroyed the legend of his finest achievement by diluting it with round after round of awful makeovers / prequels.
I suppose all that's left now is to run completely into the ground for the last squeeze of profit, then retire.
In other news, plans are afoot to retouch the Mona Lisa now that pigment technology has improved.
Even my well-developed sense of morbid curiosity kept me out of the cinemas for the release of Episodes II and III, judgement which subsequent viewings on free-to-air telly have proven to be utterly sound, and now I won't have Star Wars in the house.
I will not be shovelling any money into Lucas' neck-pouch this time around.
'the word "Wookiee" has been changed to "hair challenged animal" and that the entire cast has been digitally replaced by Ewoks'
Also, The China Probrem:
'They're just taking Indiana Jones and they're... they're raping him!'
'Why would Spielberg and Lucas do this?!'
While I will admit that the re-master of the original trilogy had some good developments, it was completely unnecessary and spoiled the feel of the film. The move to 3D will likely be similar, a few good bits (I'm thinking Luke bombing the death star will look pretty cool) but overall spoiling the film.
And starting with Phantom Menace? I don't know many people (unfortunately my mother is one) who enjoyed that film. It should be removed from the history books. Ep 2 wasn't much better. And, although Ep 3 wasn't bad, I was really dissapointed. It could have been so much darker, instead they pandered to the majority again and produced a mediocre film. I won't bother going to see any of that trillogy, and doubt I will go to see the "original" trillogy in 3D either.
It's amazing, every time there's a 3D story on any news site that allows comments, there is a flood of "3D is a waste of time" and "it gives me headaches" and "I don't like wearing glasses".
Crappy upconverts, crappy 3D movies in general (ones that would be crap in 2D as well) and the Phantom Menace sucking bag aside, I don't get why so many people trash the technology in general.
If you don't want to wear glasses AND don't want to sacrifice resolution and viewing angles, you'll be waiting a while. I say enjoy it with glasses now, and upgrade to an autostereoscopic display later when they suck LESS than glasses and don't cost as much as a new car.
IMHO, any inconveniences about glasses or any complaints about quality 3D movie/TV content are presently outweighed by the 2D->3D hardware upconverting of ALL your existing 2D stills and motion content, 3D live sports and video games (Xbox 360, PS3 and PC... they're all great).
Other apps, as well, really benefit from the upconvert... e.g. Google Earth, Microsoft Worldwide Telescope. Check out the exploding crab nebula in 3D and tell me it ain't some cool shiz.
I can't comment about headaches... that'd piss me off too. I guess I've been wearing LCD shutter glasses since the Sega Master System so my brain is wired for them now... I can wear glasses for a full workday and no worries.
It's that I don't like being forced to wear the cheap, crappy, dirty, limited field of view glasses that most cinemas make you use and then dump in a bucket for the next victim on your way out. Cheap thin plastic lenses warp and then the effect is marred. The only semi-reasonable glasses I've experienced are the ones at the Imax cinema. The again, maybe I'm just sensitive, I've, on occasion, had to complain in a cineam that a projector was out of focus when everyone else was sitting there blissfully unaware.
When 3D comes to our homes hopefully we'll have a choice of different types of glasses... but...
having spent a small fortune having lasik so that I don't have to wear glasses they're really not something I look forward to putting on again.
Glasses free 3D I would quite happily have though...
>However, Variety reckons the Star Wars rehashes
>"should stifle speculation that the format is a fading fad".
But at the same time, it may start speculation that they need more money before they can start with the first of the next three movies?
Me-sa can't wait to see Jar-Jar in 3D, Anakin!
I've heard many people complaining that the latest 3 SW movies are so bad and the PM is the worst of all, however, when asked to elaborate none can come up with any rational explanation to what is actually so wrong with the movies and how they are so much worse than the original 3.
I came to a conclusion that the complainers have watched the original movies when they were children and when they saw the new movies they expected that somehow magically they will be transported back into their childhood, so now it's Lucas fault that it didn't happen.
Objectively, the latest 3 movies are at the very least no worse than the first 3, if not better (while the acting is of the same quality the, effects are, of course, better and there is a semblance of plot as well).
I can't watch 3D movies, my brain is too intelligent to be fooled into thinking that a flat image is actually 3D, at which point, in walks Mr Headache to remind me not to sit through this so called 3D pap.
But that's fine, it gives me some extra pub time having a few drinks while every other schmuck hands over the extra cash to watch the same sad old movie again.
It gets rid of all them ratbag kids from my favourite drinking establishments, so good on you Georgie boy! Got anything else you can drag out of the basement and re-re-re-rehash a few more times? Can you start releasing the films on a Friday night instead of a Thursday night in Australia, so that it makes after work drinkies more worthwhile? :)
Paris, because she would be down at the pub too, she can't wear the glasses, it makes her look less attractive :)
I watched Avatar in 3D. Did I enjoy it? Actually I did. But I also saw it in 2D, and I didn't feel like I missed a whole lot in comparison. Maybe it's like stereo versus surround sound, I've been to a few movies that really used the surround sound to good effect, but most it's like the THX Logo uses it (it sounds like stuff's going all over the place), then the movie really doesn't have any scenes where stuff would be beside or behind the viewer anyway so it could have been in stereo and not lost much. Given Avatar was a movie actually MADE in 3D and I didn't feel a big loss watching it again in 2D, I expect conversions to be most unimpressive. Finally, I didn't get a headache from the glasses, but did find them fatiguing to the point that I wouldn't want to wear them unless a movie is ACTUALLY 3D, and not a 2D movie with a few gimmicky 3D scenes thrown in (I'm not implying Star Wars will be like that since almost the whole thing was CGI anyway... but maybe.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020