Star Wars Films In 3D Due In 2012 409
bowman9991 writes "Star Wars creator George Lucas is converting all six films from his iconic science fiction saga into 3D and will re-release them in theatres in 2012. 'Episode I: The Phantom Menace' will be released first."
Ya (Score:5, Informative)
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:Oh no. Not again. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
2d to 3d??? (Score:3, Informative)
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:Oh no. Not again. (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Question is will they remain willing? (Score:3, Informative)
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:All you haters ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Whats better than re-watching a horrible film? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:2d to 3d??? (Score:1, Informative)
Iron Man 2 was converted. Alice in Wonderland was converted. Many of the recent 3D movies were filmed in 2D and converted.
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:3, Informative)
What might not be obvious at first is that it's a caricature named Mr. Plinkett. It's supposed to be a slovenly old man who borders on senile and psychotic. They do this to add some additional humor and characterization to the reviews, otherwise you're basically going to be listening to some nasally nerd nitpicking details. It takes a little getting used to but if you've only watched five minutes I encourage you to give it another shot with the knowledge that the voice is satire.
That said, the Star Wars reviews do suffer a little bit from a skit-based "subplot" wherein the Plinkett character has kidnapped a hooker and kept her in the basement. We think he's going to kill her but instead he shows her the prequels as torture. It's supposed to be funny but it's mostly cringeworthy. His Star Trek reviews don't have any of this and I think they're the better for it.
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:2, Informative)
Enjoy over-stating things, do we? Blade Runner has 3 versions and an unofficial workprint
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner#Versions [wikipedia.org] there are a few more.