Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Wars Films In 3D Due In 2012

Comments Filter:
  • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:11AM (#33731070) Homepage
    I have a very bad feeling about this.
    • Money Grab. Sigh.

      • by BonquiquiShiquavius (1598579) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:35AM (#33731236) Journal
        Seriously...is there any other film franchise out there that blatantly squeezes more money out of its fans? I myself am not a real Star Wars fan, but even I'm disgusted at the constant re-releases / special editions / extra special editions with 23 extra seconds of never before seen footage. The VHS/DVD/BluRay upgrade cycle for the exact same movie is bad enough. I mean, I know the fans who keep buying into this shit are the ultimate ones to blame...but who do you hate more...the crackhead or the asshole dealer that will do anything to enable and string out the addict until there's nothing left?
        • by bennomatic (691188) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:39AM (#33731266) Homepage
          Star Wars isn't alone. Lord of the Rings has something like a dozen editions. Blade Runner has so many director's cuts, I've decided Ridley Scott must be schizophrenic. Even Memento has a version where it tells the story chronological order. I don't know why I bought three copies.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by dwywit (1109409)
            Enjoy over-stating things, do we? Blade Runner has 3 versions and an unofficial workprint - hint for you, here: LOTS of films are shown to test audiences as works-in-progress and then undergo their final edits. The producers took over editing the first version, and THEY were responsible for the voice-over and happy ending, not Ridley Scott. Scott didn't have nearly as much to do with the first "director's cut" as he did over the final version. The reason it took so long to get the final version was protract
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Sir_Lewk (967686)

            You do realize that the chronological version of Memento came with regular version as a "special feature", right? Hardly a Lucas style moneygrab. I don't know why you bought three copies either...

        • by mark72005 (1233572) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:39AM (#33731268)
          Maybe the new editions of episodes 1-3 won't suck?
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by dsavi (1540343)
            Oink oink, flap flap.
          • by Z34107 (925136) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @02:46AM (#33731544)

            Maybe the new editions of episodes 1-3 won't suck?

            I heard the 3D release will give Jar-Jar's tired character more depth.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by J.J. Dane (1562629) *

              "I heard the 3D release will give Jar-Jar's tired character more depth."

              So would dumping him in the ocean somewhere in the first 5 minutes

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by Z34107 (925136)

                Are you saying the 3D movies will have... deleted footage?!

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Vectormatic (1759674)

                  Now there is a selling point if i ever saw one..

                  While they are at it, they can remove the whole space-soap shit with obi wan and padme right before the finale in Ep 3 as well, just replace it with another epic space battle and everyone will be happy

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by jedidiah (1196)

                > So would dumping him in the ocean somewhere in the first 5 minutes

                He's an aquatic creature. There would be little point.

                To be effective, he needs to be sucked out an airlock...

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by eggnoglatte (1047660)

              So his flopping tongue will stick out of the screen? Nice.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by mjwx (966435)

            Maybe the new editions of episodes 1-3 won't suck?

            If they cut out all the scenes that suck...

            Shortest, Movie, Evar.

          • by Linker3000 (626634) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @03:59AM (#33731824) Journal
            I hear those episodes have to be watched with special glasses - one eyepiece is tinted full black and the other is...full black too. This apparently makes the whole viewing experience of these films much much better.
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Jeremy Erwin (2054)

              No, you're thinking of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which should only be viewed with Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.

        • by Amarantine (1100187) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @02:26AM (#33731462)

          but who do you hate more...the crackhead or the asshole dealer that will do anything to enable and string out the addict until there's nothing left?

          I think the correct SW line would be: who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by rainmouse (1784278)
          I can just imagine the email to marketting now From : g.lucas@hotmail.com
          Subject : Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have a great idea, we could re-release Star Wars!

          Hey guys I have another idea to follow up the 3d release for star wars, this time we could replace Chewbacca with CGI similar to Jar Jar Binx! Then we could creature future releases that replace other characters and the space scenes, remember we also have over a thousand hours
        • by King_TJ (85913) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @08:53AM (#33733210) Journal

          Well, in hindsight, squeezing additional money after a film's release is kind of the whole George Lucas "hallmark". It's really his "trump card" he played back when Star Wars was first released, which made him the man who beat Hollywood at their own game.

          (He was the first to realize there was a potential fortune in marketing toys based on the movie characters, so got himself rights to any/all of those profits as part of his movie contract. Hollywood, at the time, didn't think that was important so they ignored that clause while trying to screw him in the usual ways,)

          I've never really agreed with his premise that movies are always "unfinished projects" you can go back and revise at will, though. IMO, you're supposed to give your best effort and consider it a one-shot opportunity. When the final product comes out in the theater, it's "finished", for better or for worse. Yes, someone else can do a "remake" later, if they so desire. But remakes are other people's interpretations of the story ... not the ORIGINAL producer deciding to revise it.

          When it comes to the Star Wars saga though? Enough time has passed so you've got whole new generations of kids wanting to buy/watch it, and inevitably, some of them will buy whatever the latest edition is on store shelves, vs. going to extra effort to obtain the "original" versions. So yeah, some profits will always be there -- but it's just an annoyance to people like me.

        • by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @09:11AM (#33733426) Homepage Journal

          "Spaceballs Two: The Search for More Money!" -- Mel Brooks, Spaceballs

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by timeOday (582209)
      I agree, I don't think the older 3 Star Wars films stand up as modern sci-fi because they feel small (due to the lack of CGI), and the new ones just aren't that interesting.

      The first two are still very good when viewed as vintage films (which they are). But splicing in CGI here and there (and, I predict, adding 3d) makes them uneven and a pushes them into areas where they can't compete against contemporary films.

      • zzzzz

        I've seen the Star Wars stories multiple times now. I'm sick of them. I'd rather watch new material like Haven, Eureka, Stargate, and so on. Plus whatever comes out in "Asimov's Science Fiction" each month.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by keeboo (724305)

        I agree, I don't think the older 3 Star Wars films stand up as modern sci-fi because they feel small (due to the lack of CGI)

        I disagree, the effects of those are not dated enough to distract from the story.
        But, hey, you can watch Avatar if CGI is your thing.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo@NOspaM.world3.net> on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @09:26AM (#33733556) Homepage

        I actually preferred the older effects, sets and model work to the shiny CGI in the prequels. The latter films looked too clean and artificial. The used, worn, slightly badly fitting look of everything in the original trilogy made it a lot more believable to me.

    • by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:25AM (#33731160) Homepage Journal

      Oh, I don't know. It sounds somewhat promising.

      Maybe the plots and characters will actually have some depth in these new versions!

      • Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:5, Informative)

        by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:31AM (#33731216) Homepage Journal

        By the way, if you haven't seen the Red Letter Media Star Wars reviews [redlettermedia.com] yet, shame on you. At the least, set aside an hour and watch the Phantom Menace review. He goes above and beyond a normal video review (Menace is an hour, Clones is almost 90 minutes) explaining exactly why the movies fail so horribly.

        The Star Trek movie reviews are also fantastic -- even better than the Star Wars ones, I think. Funny as hell, dead on the mark, and well worth the time to watch them.

    • Ya (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:29AM (#33731198)

      It seems to me if somethign wasn't shot in 3D, the conversion is going to be very bad. To the extent 3D works for movies at all, it is in situations like Avatar where it was shot entirely for 3D and more or less the move just has depth. It kinda looks like there's a hole in the wall of the theater, rather than a screen. Ok, fine. However if the movie wasn't shot in 3D, you can't do that. You can't capture that depth data you don't already have. So what does that mean? It means cheesy effects. Means most of the movie will be 2D with some really noticeable, and annoying, moments when somethign pops out of the screen at you.

      While I'm not a fan of this 3D trend overall and I think it'll be a passing fad, I'm ok with movies properly shot for 3D. At least then it can gain something, it isn't a gimmick, just a way to try and make things more interesting. However I really don't like 3D when it is stupid and gimmicky, the "Hey look! This is in 3D! Are you not amazed?" No, I'm not, knock it off.

      Unfortunately I have to imagine that is what this will be since I can't see any way of making it anything else. The original films were shot with only one camera, there just isn't the stereoscopic data there.

      • Re:Ya (Score:5, Funny)

        by daveime (1253762) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:38AM (#33731264)

        It will never be a "passing fad" when the cinemas can charge DOUBLE for the privilege of watching it in 3D, and there are morons willing to pay it.

        Reminds me of post on Failbook a while back ...

        Person 1: I've just seen Avatar in 3D, it was awesome. I wish the whole world was 3D.
        Person 2: It is.

        • It is something new, so people are intrigued. However will it have staying power? My guess is no. 3D movies with glasses is not a new idea. It has been tried twice before that I'm aware of, and was a failure in both cases (outside of a few specialist theaters). I don't think it is going to be here to stay.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by mcgrew (92797) *

            It is something new, so people are intrigued

            Only if you're young. 3D is a fad that has come and gone many times before; the 1951 film "Hondo" is an example of a 3D movie older than me. It used the primitive colored lens tech. I have a VCR tape that's probably 20 years old I recorded off the air of a Rolling Stones concert with 3D footage that uses that old tech. The beauty of the colored glasses is it will work with any device that can display a 2D picture, even paper. There are 3D pics of Mars and various

      • Re:Ya (Score:5, Funny)

        by SteeldrivingJon (842919) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:49AM (#33731298) Homepage Journal

        In theory, the CGI content of the prequels could be re-rendered for genuine 3D, with the two camera viewpoints. Scenes that are entirely CGI ought to look great.

        Then the 2D elements like the actors, and the 1D elements, like Hayden Christensen, could be composited in and, if necessary, plumped up with faux-3D.

        Which might have a somewhat better result than if the completed, final frames of the films are used as input to the simulated 3D process. Which is pretty much what I think will have to be done with the original three films.

      • by Haedrian (1676506)

        Well, they can hardly make the first three episodes any worse then they already are.

        Pity the characters will remain one dimensional

      • Re:Ya (Score:5, Interesting)

        by visgoth (613861) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @03:37AM (#33731722)
        I saw the remake of Clash of the Titans in "3d" and it was put through a 2d to 3d conversion. The greedy producers had all the existing footage converted to stereo 3d, and the result was craptacular. At best stuff looked three dimensional the way looking into a viewmaster was "three dimensional". At worst it was causing me eyestrain and headaches, although the headaches could have been due to the total shitfest that the movie itself was. If a similar technique is being employed for the Star Wars re-re-re-release than its likely going to have the same strange viewmaster looking effect.
      • Re:Ya (Score:5, Insightful)

        by txoof (553270) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @03:37AM (#33731728) Homepage

        Movies that properly use the 3D format to enhance the experience, rather than simply chuck crap out of the screen are stunning. Avatar was filmed in 3D, properly, but really was just a gimmick to draw in crowds and immerse them in a spectacular alien world without much substance. The film adaptation of Neil Gaiman's Coraline, on the other hand, was astounding. There were only a few instances of stuff jumping out of the screen and it never felt forced. Instead, the film allowed you to more naturally live the in the world of Coraline. For much of the movie, the 3D takes a back seat to the actual story. It only becomes apparent in some truly stunning moments. In one incredible shot, the camera follows a circus mouse on a ball down a ramp. The shot is filmed entirely through the perspective of the mouse. The subtle beauty, craftsmanship and incredible detail of that scene was definitely enhanced by the use of 3D.

        I'd like to see more moving making where 3D enhances the film rather than depends on it. I can't see how the original Star Wars movies will be enhanced, other than more crap flying out of the screen. I can already see the Death Star lazer beam shot at Alderan: Interrior of death star with hokey enhanced laser beam and artificially (poorly) deepened beam chamber; cut to exterior and newly rendered death star (poorly mapped onto a sphere); cut to shot looking right into dish-of-death as the beam flies out into the audience.

        Vomit.

        Though, Luke's bombing run might not completely suck if they go back and re-render the whole thing so it is actually in 3D rather than 3D-ifeyed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jamesh (87723)

        Yeah. I can't see it being that spectacular past the opening credits (which will be cool).

    • Are these not the re-releases you're looking for?

  • 4th post (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:11AM (#33731074)

    The first 3 sucked

  • re-watching it *and* it being up in your face!!

    Seriously - this has got to stop. Making a movie 3D doesn't make it good... *cough*Avata*cough*
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Hey, Avatar was a decent movie, i intentionally stayed away from all the hype as to not spoil my expectations, and hey, it worked, i liked it.
      Sure, it's not the most original story, but it works, it's a family movie.

      However, i did watch it in plain 2D cinema, i'm not buying into the stereoscopic shit.
  • Oh crap. (Score:2, Funny)

    by tacarat (696339)
    So now Amidala's frozen nipples on Tatooine really will put somebody's eye out?
  • Again? Seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cplus (79286) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:13AM (#33731088) Homepage Journal

    Fuck you, George Lucas. Fuck you.

  • Oh, no! (Score:5, Funny)

    by scotts13 (1371443) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:14AM (#33731092)
    As if the prequel films didn't ALREADY cause massive headaches...
  • Its a TRAP! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nweaver (113078) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:15AM (#33731102) Homepage

    Its A Trap!
    -Ackbar

  • All you haters ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l0ungeb0y (442022) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:16AM (#33731112) Homepage Journal

    All you haters are just jealous that you don't have your own multi-billion dollar franchise to rape over and over and over and over and over and over again

    • by vlad30 (44644) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @02:25AM (#33731460)
      Not jealous, this is why copyrights should be limited to 7-14yrs Lucas would have to create something new instead of rerelease
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by devent (1627873)

        Why stop with 7-14 years? With no copyright he must create something new directly after the old one leaves the theater, plus the DVDs of the old ones would not be so horrible expensive.

        Before someone comes with the stupid argument for copyright, all movies makes their money in the theaters and you can't just copy the theaters.

        • by internettoughguy (1478741) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @06:38AM (#33732528)

          Why stop with 7-14 years? With no copyright he must create something new directly after the old one leaves the theater, plus the DVDs of the old ones would not be so horrible expensive.

          Before someone comes with the stupid argument for copyright, all movies makes their money in the theaters and you can't just copy the theaters.

          Hang on a sec; why would the theatres pay the distributors if this were the case?

  • When the special editions came out in the late 90s, they re-released each movie in the original trilogy like every 3 weeks. Now I love Star Wars, changes & all, but still it felt about as close as back to back to back as I'd want to get (yes, I know many of us watch all 3 in the span of a day, but I'm not one of them).

    If they released one a year, well at least that gives me some time to breathe and actually get EXCITED about seeing the next one.

    • by msobkow (48369)

      Or better yet, he could have done the other three movies that were originally planned in 3D.

      3D gives me a headache. I'm certainly not going to plunk down cash to see the same old movie in 3D.

    • I just hope they don't continue the saga of editing. I saw one of the re-release versions at a friends house a few years ago, I can't remember which "special" edition it was, but it lacked the tone of the original in several scenes. It seems like Lucas wants to reinvent the series with every new release and each step gets it further from the great plot and characters of the original. Maybe in this version they can make Luke blue and give Leigha 3 boobs.
  • What if... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by StudMuffin (167171) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:20AM (#33731130) Homepage

    What if we just didn't go? Seriously. Don't go. Just don't. Don't do it.

    INSTEAD, go to the movies that weekend, but SEE SOMETHING ELSE. Don't punish the theater owners by withholding business, but show Lucas that he is done fisting our childhoods.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by catbutt (469582)
      What if, instead, if you want to go, go. If you don't, don't.

      Boycotts don't work. They are asking people to go against their own self-interest. Nobody is going to go along with your "let's all agree to do this" plan, they'll all just do what they want to do. If they are curious and feel like seeing the movie, they will.

      Anyway, I just don't understand how it is hurting you that he is doing this. You can still watch it in non-3d. Nobody is forcing you to see it in 3d.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by El Lobo (994537)
      Well, don't go if you don't want. I'll sure go. I'm not religious and i'll have a good time.
  • 3D won't improve the movies as they weren't designed for it in the first place.

  • by atomicstrawberry (955148) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:27AM (#33731174)

    I guess Lucas got tired of people saying his films lack depth and are filled with flat, two-dimensional characters.

  • Does annyone know what kind of quality level they can bring to the "3d-ification" of what is essentially 2D source material? The Last Airbender was genuinely atrocious in 3D, partially because the process of making 3D images from 2D films seems pretty bad at the moment. Of course, it was an atrocious movie in 2D too, but that's not my question.

    Also, will he take the opportunity to re-do scenes from the prequels? This might be a great opportunity to edit Jar Jar, and some of the other embarassing storytel

    • He won't make Han shoot first, but maybe he can make Han shoot Jar-Jar.
    • I saw Nightmare Before Christmas (filmed in 2D) in 3D. However, I can't comment on how good it was because I don't tend to be able to see the effect. It just doesn't work for me, instead it becomes blurry. There will be one or two shots in any 3D film where I can see it, and they tend to be the cheesy gimmicks. The Terminator one at Universal Studios worked the best for me so far, but that's probably because it was 100% gimmick (so is the Muppet Show one, but that doesn't work as well for me somehow). I did

    • by Dahamma (304068)

      I think you may have answered your own question as to quality of converted 3D...

      Hell, RotJ was on TV a few weeks ago and for some reason I watched part of it (have it on DVD already, of course :) I forgot how absolutely AWFUL the CG he added to it looked (notably the idiotic extra "song and dance" scene in Jabba's palace... uuugh, still makes me nauseous...)

    • by glwtta (532858)
      This might be a great opportunity to edit Jar Jar

      You're right, they probably will take this opportunity to add more Jar Jar scenes, after all, the kids love him!
  • Even larger Explosion Rings in 3D! Now you can literally crawl peek under the cantina table to see who shot first!

    Seriously though, as much as you might joke and the people here seem to complain, you know you'll all go see it.

    My only wish is that they would add smell-o-vision so we could really taste Jabbas Palace.

  • by seeker_1us (1203072) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:29AM (#33731196)
    It's logical. In 2d it sucked to the second power. Now it will suck to the third.
  • Right on the heels of the Blu-ray release in 2011?!?

  • It appears Lucas is trying to give the White Album a run for its money...
  • Or something like that. - Unfortunately there is little hope the new 3D versions will be able to live up to what the original three movies were. They will most probably be a continuation of the insanity that brought us three additional Ewoks movies, the useless "revisions" of the original classics and three mostly annoying "prequels".

    Fortunately there was an improved version (the digitally remastered Laserdisk version) before Lucas went completely crazy (when he added an undersized weird CGI Jabba the Hu
  • 2d to 3d??? (Score:3, Informative)

    by loki_tiwaz (982852) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:43AM (#33731282)

    how the hell do you turn a fully 2d primary source into 3d? and 3d that doesn't make you want to scream 'FAKE!'...

    if anyone can post a link in reply to my post showing that from a single 2d image source a 3d image can be created that doesn't look a bit wonky i'll stfu. sure, piece of cake converting all that 3d graphics to stereoscopic, but, and maybe i am not understanding the filming process with that expensive 70mm cinema type film, but there is definitely only one 'good' copy of all the shots in 2d, there isn't inadvertently gonna suddenly be a second one... i mean, i would guess you could work on something if there was a second cam recording at the same time at a slightly different but convergent view, but really, you'd have to have one on each side, that could give you a volume model that could let you do the 3d but even still... i call bullshit on converting star wars to 3d. i don't see how it could be done. i'd love to know how such a thing could be done. 3d won't work if you can't flesh out the occluded parts that you see to the left and right of the 2d original.

    • Re: 3d??? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ukemike (956477)
      Come on all 3d movies suck royally. The illusion breaks down constantly, and reminds you about 5 times per minute that "hey you're watching a 3d movie!!"

      The illusion breaks down at the edge of the screen, especially when an image that is supposed to be in front of the plane of the screen intersects with the edge.

      The illusion breaks down when you get that choppiness from panning or from an object moving quickly from side to side.

      The illusion breaks down every time there is a bright consistent bac
  • by SuluSulu (1039126) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:50AM (#33731312) Homepage
    Noooooooooooooooo!!! [nooooooooooooooo.com]
  • by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @01:58AM (#33731356) Homepage Journal
    I think this is the first article about 2012 I've read that actually makes the Mayan apocalypse predictions sound appealing. Here's hoping the calendar runs out before Lucas's patience does...
  • So... What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Shadow Wrought (586631) * <shadow.wrought @ g m a i l.com> on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @02:06AM (#33731386) Homepage Journal
    Greedo now shoots YOU first?
  • I thought that the Special Edition version of that scene with the band in Jabba's castle was missing something!

    Also, more Ewoks please. And make them speak English this time!
  • How many more times do we have to endure the same movie being released over and over again? Let it go already and make something new, George.

    Wait - he does realize that 3D actually refers to a change in technology, not in showing the exact same movie three times, right?

  • 2D + depth map = 3D! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DrXym (126579) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @05:28AM (#33732216)
    2D to 3D conversion is rapidly becoming the modern day equivalent of colorization of black and white films. I wonder how long before "now in 3D!" becomes as distasteful as "now in color!".

    The conversion process is basically the computational equivalent of vacuum forming the 2D image over a depth map. Depending on the fidelity of the models that generate the depth map, the effect will vary between passable and looking like cardboard cutouts in a diorama.

    From a technical point of view it will be interesting to see how Lucasfilm deal with the conversion. I think the conversion will be abysmal in the first 3 movies with lots of crappy dust & particle effects tossed in and some reshot CG. Potentially the 3D could be more passable on the prequels depending on how far they go. Most of the prequel scenes are pure CG or composite live action and CG so in theory all these scenes could be rerendered. I think in practice though that probably only a fraction will get the full treatment and the remainder will under go a 2D + depth map process.

  • by rlp (11898) on Wednesday September 29, 2010 @09:06AM (#33733364)

    "Luke I am your father. Now I am standing closer. Now I am farther away. Now I am closer ..."

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...