Episode I 3D Release Date Announced 313
TheBrakShow writes 'Lucasfilm Ltd. and Twentieth Century Fox announced today that the 3D theatrical launch of Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace now has an official release date — February 10, 2012!' Are enough fans interested in watching the weakest films of the trilogy again just to experience them in 3D?"
I for one am looking forward to a new and improved Jar Jar experience.
I for one am looking forward to a new and improved Jar Jar experience.
Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be an interesting debate to have on what is the WORST part of The Phantom Menace. Jar Jar? That little kid who couldn't act and was thrown into laughably implausible situations (like a bad straight-to-DVD Disney movie where NASCAR lets an 8-year old join the circuit just because the movie's called "The NASCAR Kid")? The introduction of Mitaclorians, which pretty much undermined everything Yoda taught Luke in Empire? The creepy child molester vibe Queen Amadalia was giving off talking to the aforementioned non-acting little kid?
I'm going to go with the fact that they brought Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Samuel Jackson into this godawful shitfest--actual talented actors with long resumes of much better films. It was like watching your favorite aunt get raped for 2 hours. No amount of overpriced popcorn could make that any better.
But now I get to see her raped in 3D, and pay twice as much for the privilege. Look Aunt Wanda, we get to keep the glasses! Awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's exactly and precisely like that.
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:5, Funny)
No, I like Samuel Jackson way better than her. She wasn't even in Pulp Fiction.
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember in Pulp Fiction Jules saying that getting thrown out of a window is no way for a nigga to die. Only in episode 3 for Mace to get thrown out of a fucking window.
That was the final insult for me. I can take alot shit from movies but that made me lose my appreciation for Lucas permanently. He could do a special edition of all the movies where he undoes all the crap and I will still not care.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes he's the goofy comic relief and that is fine, but the bigger problem was he was worthless and provided nothing else.
Re: (Score:3)
Lucas is recasting Ashton Kutcher in the role as a romantic interest for Queen Amidala.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, I don't see how it could have been avoided. The Republic was weak and ineffectual, allowing some of its members to blatantly invade and pillage other members, and refusing to take action without going through tons of bureaucratic hoops and time-wasting investigation. Regardless of who represents any member, that's just a recipe for disaster and dissolution.
Worse, I think it's an interesting parallel for other real-world governments, showing that Republics just don't live very long and aren't h
Re: (Score:3)
The oldest republic is San Marino, from 301 AD. So, a bit longer than a half-century :-)
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:5, Funny)
It was like watching your favorite aunt get raped for 2 hours. No amount of overpriced popcorn could make that any better.
So that would be a thumbs down?
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Have some towels handy for when your ears start bleeding. If there's one thing that's more annoying than Jar Jar, it's Mr. I-Wanna-Be-Buffalo-Bill.
Re: (Score:3)
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the franchise.
http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/luke-learns-the-truth.html [adultswim.com]
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've already pitched it. I fully expect a greenlight any day now. Then I'll just have to convince Justin Bieber's little brother to take the part, and we're good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, HPA Motorsports did make 500+ HP AWD V6 twin turbo beetle not too long ago with a 4 second 0-60.
Re: (Score:2)
But was it naturally aspirated? Did it use a carburator? Or even have a suspension from the 1950s?
Clearly this car you speak of would be far too modern and high tech for NASCAR.
Re: (Score:2)
But with that short a wheelbase, it would be really unstable at NASCAR speeds. And even with 500+ HP and 4WD it would still be underpowered, the suspension would suck and it would be left far behind.
Re: (Score:2)
The suspension would suck?
NASCAR still uses a live rear axle last I checked.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing is both of them are similar in a lot of ways, naturally aspirated and carburated and all that. Outated is what I really mean. NASCAR needs to update, oh and stop going around in circles.
Re: (Score:2)
oh and stop going around in circles.
They do road course hereabouts at Infineon/Sears Point. I never go, but it's interesting that all of the big points leaders on the Left Turn Circuit get their asses wiped there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
NASCAR needs to update, oh and stop going around in circles.
Circle is fine, but I think they should have the even numbered cars go clockwise and the odd numbered cars go counterclockwise. It would make a more interesting show.
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:4, Informative)
Even though it was unrealistic doesn't change the fact that an anthropomorphized Volkswagen Beetle from a cheesy 1960's Disney children's movie had a deeper range of emotion and acting ability than what was demonstrated by the actors in the Phantom Menace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a parallel universe where Lucas didn't become a greedy, egotistical bastard, and who gave the directorial reins to someone like Kirshner not just for ESB, but for Episodes 4 and 6 too? And then went on to create prequels with the same method, and maybe some sequels too, with Lucas doing the visual arts stuff (his one real talent) and leaving the screenplay and direction to more talented people?
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:5, Funny)
It's as though these new movies were written by a completely different author.
There were people writing that stuff? I always envisioned somebody dumping an eightball of coke into a 40, using that to wash down a handful of waffle pretzels and a mouthful of spray cheese, and then Voilà, it's movie making time...
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (Score:4, Insightful)
Except how are they going to do that without undermining 15-20 years worth of sequel novels/other EU stuff? For the benefit of the uninitiated, dates in Star Wars are based around episode four much like our CE and BCE system, (The Battle of Yavin happens at 0 BBY) so BBY ==years before the Battle of Yavin and ABY == years After the Battle of Yavin. The Star Wars timeline has been extended out to as far as ~150 ABY in the legacy era and prequel stuff goes back over 4000 BBY into the early Old Republic era. (KOTOR games, comics, etc) We have even seen glimpses of the Pre-Republic era (20,000 BBY) but it hasn't been explored very much.
The only hope for more movies would be to cram additional episodes somewhere in the middle between those two extremes and hope everything still fits together without any huge contradictions. (though I personally doubt Lucas would actually care if he ruined years of established continuity in favor of his own vision)
Re: (Score:3)
Its hard to believe a man who created such a wonderful universe of fantasy hasn't had an original appealing idea in the last 10-15 years
Huh? It's more like 20-25 years. He hasn't done anything worthwhile since Episode VI (and even that wasn't that great; it would have been much better if he had let Kirshner keep control of it like he did with Ep. V). The Prequels were nothing but a blatant and ugly money-grab.
Hahaha (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
good plan, who we shooting second?
I feel a... (Score:5, Funny)
Cardboard acting in 3D? (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad technology can't improve acting and dialog, because that's the real reason Star Wars I, II and III are forever stuck in the second dimension.
Re: (Score:2)
"...Star Wars I, II and III are forever stuck in the second dimension."
Ignignokt: Here on the moon, our film making is far more advanced.
Err: Yeah, Jar Jar sucks!
Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the RedLetterMedia/Plinkett Reviews [redlettermedia.com] are the best thing the come out of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. I found the review to be much more entertaining and higher quality than the films themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
I think there's more to it than that. Good actors don't act in a vacuum, they work with the director to bring out the best in them. A good director is able to bring out great acting in a good actor, and a lousy director will make a great actor seem like a hack. Lucas is a terrible director. From what I've read, Lucas never did multiple takes of any scene with dialog, he just wanted the actors to spit their lines out and that was that; he just didn't care about the acting quality at all, he just wanted t
Probably not (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Horse (Score:2)
The Horse is dead, you can stop beating upon its carcass.
Re: (Score:2)
When all you have is horse bones you either retire and live of the millions you already made or sell horse nuggets.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you carve the horse bones into crossbow bolts to train your hunter before switching him over to marksdwarf.
Re:Horse (Score:4, Funny)
They are gonna keep trying to bleed those films dry as long as the return is positive. It's kinda fun to see how far they'll take it as long as you don't spend any of your own money on it. I predict that the final release before they put this to bed will be the uber-enhanced ultra-digital 3D edition with unseen footage, enhanced audio, product placement (the Jawas will be selling droids with a marlboro red hanging off their lower lip, eating cheetos and wearing Nikes), and a special audio commentary by Jar Jar across all 6 episodes.
Re: (Score:2)
The Horse is dead, you can stop beating upon its carcass.
Agreed. However, Lucas keeps reanimating it into ZombieHorse. We have no choice but to pound it into a greasy pulp or let it devour our brains.
only if Lucas is merely beating a dead horse (Score:2)
I think he's HUMPING the dead horse... Really George, what have you done LATELY?
Go (Score:2, Insightful)
FOOMP (Score:2)
"I for one am looking forward to a new and improved Jar Jar experience." -- FOOMP
Read this dilbert strip to understand... [dilbert.com]
Re:FOOMP (Score:5, Funny)
I would seriously consider (Score:4, Funny)
star suckers (Score:2)
GL releases a "new" version of these movies every few years to get money from the fans and they keep paying. next there will be another blu ray release with 3d and digital copy when he could have done it for the upcoming 2011 release
Re: (Score:2)
After Portman's performance in Black Swan, I fully expect GL to come out with a new version with a digitally-inserted Mila Kunis as one of Padme's handmaidens...including a shower scene.
I'll be in my bunk.
Sounds like an interesting movie (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never heard of this "Phantom Menace" thing before. I'm sure if George Lucas was behind it, it must be humorous, entertaining and dramatic, with characters we can identify with for generations to come, just like the Star Wars trilogy we all loved as kids!
I'm so glad that somebody with the integrity of George Lucas is responsible for shepherding this loveable trilogy through the years. That way I can introduce these movies to my own children without having to worry about somebody coming along and pooping all over the memories of my childhood. You know, the temptation to edit or re-issue movies to capitalize on their enduring success might be quite extreme, but George is one of those guys who knows when to say "it was good enough 30 years ago, let's not mess with a good thing".
A lesser man might have, for example, decided to edit away some of the age-inappropriate roguishness of Han Solo in an effort to merchandize schlocky toys to kids. But not George, no.
I'm not really sure what this whole 3d thing is about though. I'm sure it's a sincere effort to make a genuine artistic statement that just happens to be set in that Star Wars universe we all know and love.
Thank god for George Lucas.
Re: (Score:2)
Truly, he's as wise as he is unselfish.
Re:Sounds like an interesting movie (Score:5, Interesting)
The main problem with George in the prequels was that he was writer, director, and producer. He served different roles in the original trilogy but he was never all three. For prequels, no one had the authority or balls to tell George that his movie sucked.
For example, the storylines were needlessly complicated. Maybe in George's mind complicated meant complex but in reality the more complicated, the greater chance of a plot hole. Take for example the virgin birth of Anakin. That really served no purpose. His father could have died in mining accident, a burglary attempt, solar storm; any of those would be far simpler and easier to handle.
For me it's like George created artificial conflicts and constructs so that he could exploit later as plot devices. But someone on the outside might have pointed logical flaws. Remember how Anakin missed his mother and how her later death would trigger his descent? That wouldn't have worked had the Jedi council or Queen Amidala returned to Tatooine and freed his mother. Cause if I was Yoda and sensed all this fear in the chosen one over his mother, I would make sure his mother was okay.
Weakest? (Score:2)
Weakest of the three? Perhaps, but the competition is strong!
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'd rather watch Phantom Menace again than whatever the third one is called. But I definitely won't be rushing out to watch it in 3D.
Since there are 1.5 times more dimensions... (Score:2)
Patton Oswalt said it best: "If I had a time machine, I would go back to around 1993 or 1994 and kill George Lucas with a shovel."
Karma Killer: I Like Jar Jar (Score:2)
* I actually liked Jar Jar Binks -- he was the not so bright, but well-meaning, comic sidekick
* I think Jake Lloyd performed much better than Hayden Christensen
* I think the chemistry between Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen was as hot as the chemistry between gold and nitrogen at 0 Kelvin
* I do not think that Anakin's shift from good to evil is very convincing
But no matter what, the movies are not worth a
Re: (Score:3)
I would think only the first of these would be particularly controversial. Jake Lloyd was an averagely annoying child-actor, while Hayden Christensen was a complete black-whole of charisma, removing any possibility of drama from any scene he was in; this explains the third and fourth point, too, although I think the script has to take a fair amount of blame for them, too ("You're smooth, not like sand").
So what we've got here (Score:4, Funny)
Is a 3-dimensional projection of a 2-dimensional movie with 1-dimensional acting.
mmmm, can't wait....
"Improved" Jar Jar? Must be less Jar Jar! (Score:2)
The only room for improvement here is to reduce the scenes with this thing to a minimum. I can only remember one really funny scene, when Qui-Gon grabs his tongue during the meal with Anakin's family. Maybe there are one or two more, but besides that, JJB is just a plain annoyance that makes the movie even worse than it would have been without it.
C3PO was mostly funny, so they knew how to do it right. Why did they screw it up so much with that unfunny and annoying creature?
$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! (Score:2)
$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way!
Re: (Score:2)
No one is requiring you to get the popcorn or pop.
Admittedly, no one is requiring you to get the ticket either, but even if you did, you wouldn't be required to get the rest.
(Me, even if they paid me $20 they couldn't get me to go the movie.)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that I'm likely to enjoy the popcorn and pop.
Re: (Score:2)
Popcorn and pop aren't compulsory.
You should try a movie without them sometime, it's much better without those distractions.
Re: (Score:2)
$4 pop
its called a "Soda".
There are only THREE Star Wars movies. (Score:5, Insightful)
And the first one is Episode IV.
For the record... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought Attack of the Clones was by far the weakest:
ESB
...
...
RotJ
SW
TPM
RotS
Care Bears the Movie
Sex and the City
AotC
Re: (Score:3)
It's just that nothing happened in it. I've watched all of the prequel movies exactly once (and that was enough), and this is what I remember (not necessarily in chronological order, since the plots were... weak):
Phantom Menace:
- The senate quacked about something
- The Naboo queen went through space, was attacked, thwarted the attackers with her super shiny ships
- Strangely unemotional little kid is sold to some race driver or something
- Said kid finds and repairs C3P0 (RETCON)
- Kid meets JarJar, is nonplus
tags (Score:2)
I was going to tag this story with the obvious one ("nooooooooo"), but I don't see any tags. Anyone else have this problem?
Re: (Score:2)
I see a "noooooooooo" tag. How many "o"s is that supposed to have?
OMG! OMG! OMG! (Score:4, Funny)
Could be great! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Train wreck in 3D (Score:5, Insightful)
A train wreck in 3D is still a train wreck... it just looks more like you're going to get hit by the caboose.
Loved Ep. 4, 5, 6. Deeply despised 1. Still haven't seen 2 and 3, as by all indications Lucas still hasn't learned that clowns do not belong on the battlefield (and, in fact, trivialize any sense of heriosm or sacrifice or tragedy present in the non-clowns), Western audiences don't like the idea that galactic domination is genetic, a bad movie with eye candy is still a bad movie, and that sullen teenaged angst is only entertaining to sullen teenagers.
Will not buy or download.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way (Score:5, Funny)
I disagree with the premise of your question (Score:5, Insightful)
To say Phantom was the worst implies the other two were any better.
Why not discuss how horrible 3D technology... (Score:2)
Lucas has outdone himself this time (Score:2)
Was Episode I not bad enough by itself??? I understand that converting 2D movies to 3D is probably the second worst thing to happen to cinema, but you don't need to combine them! There is no prize for worst movie idea.
Jar jar... (Score:2)
Aside from being an annoying character - some of you wouldn't realize how annoying many thought C3PO were in the first movie...
However - it's important to realize that sometimes you have to have the annoying side characters - they make the experience more real. Even real life is full of annoying people in one form or another.
Then you can look at Jar Jar from another perspective - what he looks like is well within what an alien may look like if we are to encounter them.
Re: (Score:2)
February 10, 2012! (Score:2)
There may be an upside... (Score:2)
Perhaps George in his "wisdom" will fuck with this release even more than he did for the re-release of the original trilogy. At the very least redoing the voice overs could improve this movie. Hell, it's hard to imagine that any changes to it could make it worse.
Uh, never mind. This was the guy that was somehow able to take a series that I enjoyed during my youth and managed to turn it into what feels more like a Deliverance style ass rape'in. Somehow he could make it even worse.
I have 2 words for this movie and Lucas. (Score:3)
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=free%20hat%20southpark&hl=en&meta= [google.com.au]
Free Hat (you NEED to see the episode if you like Star Wars or Indiana Jones)
"Free Hat" is episode 88 of the animated series South Park. It originally aired on July 10, 2002. The episode ridicules Lucasfilm's digital altering of George Lucas' original Star Wars trilogy and Steven Spielberg's E.T.. The episode also shows huge criticism towards remake movies.
RealD is a two-plane gimmick (Score:3, Insightful)
We've got to be only a year or two from realizing that RealD is a dumb gimmick...
RealD Cinema [wikipedia.org], the technology used in all of these films, uses alternating frequencies of light which get filtered differently by each polarized lens of the glasses it requires. This gives up to two planes of vision at a time, which can move relative to each other. For whatever reason, we are calling this 3D (I'll use the term "biplanar" for the rest of this post). Disclaimer: this is a simplification and I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but I think it hits the point.
All this biplanar vision is good for is superimposing a flat view of something in front of (or behind) the main action. That's it. I saw Avatar and was impressed by a few scenes (specifically, the captions used in the diary entries ... which were 2D), but it was almost wholly a gimmick; neat trick, but a novelty that faded before the movie finished. Captions and other flat items can add to things, but (in their current state) they do not justify the extra cost or the need to wear sunglasses in a dark theater.
That's not to say we've exhausted the limits of what biplanar movies can do; I expect explosions and other instantaneous effects can benefit greatly from this; each frame of the explosion moves slightly closer to the audience on the Z-axis, and since it emits like a wave, there is no need to continue to display previous frames in their own dedicated Z coordinate. The same goes for anything opaque that's coming right at you, so long as it has no component that requires a different depth (so a car --or spaceship-- is out because the windshield is farther from you than the fender; turn your head and the perspective shows a 2D image). In fact, the only things I can think of that fit this bill are explosions and other things that move so fast the you don't have time to move and see their flatness plus anything that is so flat it has no depth, like maybe a propeller-driven device whose propeller is so big you can't see anything else, or a wall that the first-person perspective is driving into head-first (though those two examples are pretty lame and limited).
Re-releasing old hits (a generous term for the Star Wars prequels) won't do much unless you have a fanbase that will buy anything you make (in which you might as well stick with snorting commentary tracks and back-patting featurettes).
Re:RealD is a two-plane gimmick (Score:4, Interesting)
Ehh, no.
Polarized 3D isn't limited to two planes. The polarized filter ensures the left and right image each go to the right eye, and it can look 100% like you look at the world normally.
The problem is that the perspective doesn't change when you move your head, so when you do it looks like the movie is made of paper cutouts placed at different depths (but still not limited to two). There's also that polarization is sensitive to the angle from which you're viewing the screen.
For the absolutely best effect you'd need head tracking. Of course the image would have to be rendered in real time. But then you can really create the impression that the monitor has a hole in it through which you're looking at say, a game.
Re: (Score:3)
RealD Cinema ... gives up to two planes of vision at a time
No it gives two projections of vision at a time, one for each eye... just like your eyes get from the rest of the world (each eye only sees 2d of course). It can be as 3d as actually being there, except that you cannot change the focus; your eyes always should always be focused on the screen regardless of what is projected. This causes eye strain and perception problems for some people.
ReadD does have some problems... mostly people who can perceive at 72 Hz or greater will see some flickering, and with mo
What? (Score:3)
It's not 'biplanar', it's stereoscopic. I suppose they could use something like what you describe to reconstruct a stereoscopic view of a 2d film, but in practice they are more sophisticated than that. I know you're trying to simplify things, but calling it biplanar is selling it way short.
Don't get me wrong, I hate just about everything about this 3D fad, I just think you are confused about the implementation.
Re:RealD is a two-plane gimmick (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, you have not understood how 3D cinema works at all. You even invent new terms (biplanar vision), when we are simply using Stereoscopy, a technique known since the 19th century. Your eyes see two different images due to parallax in the real world, and that important part of depth perception is what we try to imitate by feeding a slightly different image to each eye, as if there was a camera where each eye is. Well, guess what, that is not all the depth perception information we use in real life - there is also the focusing that we do that depends on the distance of objects, so each person is "tricked" by Stereoscopy in a different way. That's why we say some people don't "get" 3D.
As for the technical details, you have mixed things up. RealD does not use alternating frequencies, that is the Dolby 3D method (wavelength multiplexing). RealD is using circular polarization and polarization is not related to the frequency. Then there are the linear polarization methods, like Imax 3D, with the obvious disadvantage that you can't tilt your head sideways or your polarizer glasses won't work. These three systems all "feel" different, for example my wife gets a better 3D effect with Dolby 3D, while I think that it is worse when I move my eyes around and generally prefer Imax 3D but most likely due to the huge screen. Even if each method gives you a bit different effect, if you can't trick your brain into seeing 3D just by using stereopsis, then I guess no system will be useless to you...
Star Wars (Score:3)
I understood The Phantom Menace to be made for a new generation and therefore had little to do with Star Wars or the sequels. I dutifully went to see them, and the disappointment was less the story than the fact that throwing money at a slew of well known actors would solve the problem. It did not solve any problem in The Empire Strikes Back. The f/x was good, but again they can only go so far. In Return of the Jedi it seemed that there was a new appreciation of a combination of practical and special effects. Not more.
I think the the fact the prequels are pretty much animated stories with a bit of live acting thrown in will make them a very good 3D experience. Star Wars and the sequels will be less so because of the human element. It will certainly allow the kids who enjoyed the prequels to see them as adults and reflect on the story.
The Mayans were off by 10 months. (Score:2)
Jar Jar in 3D will be great! (Score:3)
You haters are missing the point here. Jar Jar in 3D will be awesome! It will give you the opportunity you've been waiting for since Episode 1 first came out. Just bring a knife with you to the theater, and when Jar Jar appears it 3D, you can finally stab him in the face!
Might want to make sure no one's sitting in front of you, because if they are, you'll have to explain. I mean, they'll completely understand and forgive you, but since it won't look the same from their perspective, they'll probably be mad until you tell them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I mean, the prequels aren't the best movies of all time, but the originals are pretty campy too. I love them though; probably largely because I watched them every week for the first 10 years of my life and played the video games and all that. I predict that my kids (who I will force Star Wars upon) will probably like all six of them, as they'll grow up watching all of them, and won't be surprised if they like the prequels better because they have better special effects.
The same thing goes for th
Re: (Score:3)
That's if you want to do it right, but since Lucas didn't get anything right with the prequels to begin with, he might as well do it in 3d wrong.
There's another way to make a movie shot in 2d into a 3d movie. It doesn't work very well and it looks like crap because a movie actually shot with a 3d camera (which is essentially 2 cameras stuck together at a specific distance) has each camera seeing a slightly different angle of the scene. It's that parallax that makes actual 3d look. . well. . not good, but be
Re: (Score:3)
Color and 3D in Casablanca would be a tragedy, but as for "super hi-def"...
I've seen Casablanca projected on 35mm film (three times in different theaters including at the George Eastman House), and I've seen it on Blu-Ray on a big screen at 1080p. The job they've done on restoring the film elements is astounding (as you'd hope for such an important film), and it's already "super hi-def" as even film in the 40's is capable of extremely high resolution. It looks astonishingly good.
You can certainly appreciate
Re: (Score:3)