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."
Oh no. Not again. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Money Grab. Sigh.
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes I am sure you would hate that, just like rain on your wedding day...
Re: (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...
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:5, Funny)
Probably kept forgetting where he put them!
We can dream. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We can dream. (Score:5, Funny)
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)
"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)
Are you saying the 3D movies will have... deleted footage?!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
> 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)
So his flopping tongue will stick out of the screen? Nice.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They replaced Jar-Jar with Nar-Nar, because they figured .NET is more modern than Java.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If they cut out all the scenes that suck...
Shortest, Movie, Evar.
Re:We can dream. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, you're thinking of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which should only be viewed with Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:5, Funny)
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:Oh no. Not again. (Score:4, Funny)
*handwave*
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Squeezing more money from it? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Spaceballs Two: The Search for More Money!" -- Mel Brooks, Spaceballs
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:5, Funny)
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 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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing missing is his reviews of Episodes 4, 5 and 6
From a film perspective, they were fairly well presented. I think you are assuming that his critique is a nerdrage, which it is not.
He does evaluate 4,5,6 in one point as to showcase one of the failures of episode 1. Primarily he goes into the details of the danger of splitting the plot/story into multiple lines and trying to keep it coherent for an audience viewing it for the first time.
In short, he shows that 4's ending worked VERY well because
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:Ya (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:Ya (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Yeah. I can't see it being that spectacular past the opening credits (which will be cool).
Re: (Score:2)
Are these not the re-releases you're looking for?
Re: (Score:2)
Two more ?
To my knowledge, he created one three-film epic saga, and one three-film abortion.
Re: (Score:2)
You're misparsing it. He's saying Lucas could have created two {more epic} {six film sagas}, not {two more} {epic six film sagas}
Of course, Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] predicted this a while back.
Re:Oh no. Not again. (Score:5, Funny)
William Shatner, is that, you ?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? I don't recall where I heard it but Lucas apparently said he was selling merchandise and toys, not movies. Keep an eye out for the next run of Jar Jar figurines at you local KMart.
Oh, thank goodness!
My supply of clay pigeons was getting low.
PULL!!
Strat
4th post (Score:5, Funny)
The first 3 sucked
Whats better than re-watching a horrible film? (Score:2)
Seriously - this has got to stop. Making a movie 3D doesn't make it good... *cough*Avata*cough*
Re: (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.
Oh crap. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh crap. (Score:4, Funny)
Again? Seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck you, George Lucas. Fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it bothers me because I will be compelled to view. It's another couple hundred bucks out of my pocket. I also feel compelled to bitch about it, because that's what we do.
Re:Again? Seriously? (Score:4, Funny)
You're taking this all too seriously. Everything's cool.
Oh, no! (Score:5, Funny)
Its a TRAP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Its A Trap!
-Ackbar
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Parent was modded Insightful. I can't handle firepower of that magnitude.
All you haters ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:All you haters ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:All you haters ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aaron Copeland walked into an orchestra with his latest.
One of the musicians said "What's he calling it this time?"
I hope they space it out a little more (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What if... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
Goddammit! No, George! (Score:2)
3D won't improve the movies as they weren't designed for it in the first place.
Adding depth (Score:3, Funny)
I guess Lucas got tired of people saying his films lack depth and are filled with flat, two-dimensional characters.
Fake 3D? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Fake 3D? (Score:4, Funny)
Must have been the 3D goggles. They obviously did nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
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...)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, they probably will take this opportunity to add more Jar Jar scenes, after all, the kids love him!
The Googles, They do EVERYTHING (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Phantom menace will be released first. (Score:5, Funny)
Redundant much? (Score:2)
Right on the heels of the Blu-ray release in 2011?!?
From the sublime to the ridiculous. (Score:2)
The definitive HD ultimate 3D Edition (Score:2)
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)
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)
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
Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
Good Timing.... (Score:5, Funny)
So... What? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh boy! (Score:2)
Also, more Ewoks please. And make them speak English this time!
Make it stop! (Score:2)
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)
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.
Scene from Empire Strikes Back UPDATED (Score:4, Funny)
"Luke I am your father. Now I am standing closer. Now I am farther away. Now I am closer ..."
Re:ugh! (Score:4, Funny)
Wouldn't that be Jar Jar Jar Binks now?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But I do want to see a 3D Carrie Fisher in her slave girl gold bikini.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
SEE STAR WARS RELEASED AS ITS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE IN HOLODECK CINAMEGA! EXPERIENCE THE ACTION!
Wait, that might actually be cool...
Star Wars in a holodeck?
Hmm.. yeah, at least you could punch Jar Jar in his face.