|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Sept 29, 2010 12:43:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 29, 2010 12:47:51 GMT
Oh, he's been talking about that for years moaning about waiting until there were enough 3-D theatres, etc.
Unless they can be viewed without 3-D glasses, I don't care.
-Ralph
|
|
Dave
Empty
Posts: 1,811
|
Post by Dave on Sept 29, 2010 13:11:09 GMT
Well waiting for there to be lots of 3D theatres seems like a pretty good reason if you're hoping to make a lot of £££.
I'm interested in how they will turn out (and have been since they were first discussed), but I'm a bit unsure of added-in-after 3D. Still, seems like they're putting some effort in and even if they gain nothing I'm not going to pass up the chance of Star Wars on the big screen again.
|
|
Gav
Drone
John Travoltage!
Posts: 2,047
|
Post by Gav on Sept 29, 2010 14:48:30 GMT
I've seen plenty of indignation online regarding this, as if it were any kind of surprise. I'm not a Star-Wars fan in the slightest, so it's hardly an outrage; but it'll be funny to see how many folks still flock to it once they've calmed down.
|
|
Nigel
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by Nigel on Sept 29, 2010 15:33:41 GMT
As long as it's a straight transfer and not more meddling, then I wouldn't mind seeing one or two. I doubt I'd go to them all.
As so much of the prequels is digital to begin with and ILM can work with the source files, I imagine the transfer will give better results than other, less digitally-created films that weren't intended for the medium. Not that I know anything about the process, mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Sept 29, 2010 16:26:02 GMT
To be fair, I wouldn't even mind a 'meddling' cut of the films, especially the prequels which they are starting with. There's a lot that can be improved with a bit of editing!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Sept 29, 2010 17:25:52 GMT
I'll go to see them.
I slightly prefer the Special Editions of the classic trilogy to the originals anyway.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 29, 2010 17:33:20 GMT
If the original proper films are re-released in cinemas in 2-d I'd go see them, but I avoid 3-d films for the reasons I usually cite so would skip these.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 29, 2010 17:57:45 GMT
I can live with most of the changes to Empire, but FFS loose the Imperial Shuttle stuff.
|
|
Nigel
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by Nigel on Sept 29, 2010 18:18:33 GMT
I slightly prefer the Special Editions of the classic trilogy to the originals anyway. Martin Sacrilege!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by legios on Sept 29, 2010 19:55:17 GMT
As 3D movies are for me literally the case of paying more money for a slightly inferior viewing experience to a 2D movie (and are still in 2D as far as my brain can tell) I will probably give these a miss.
This was an inevitable thing though - George Lucas rereleases Star Wars with every new format because it is a massive cash cow. From a business point of view it makes a lot of sense. From a creative point of view.... well., George Lucas has long since lost touch with the Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon roots of Star Wars anyway, it is mostly just a machine putting people in one and taking money out at the other, a bit like a sausage making machine.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Sept 29, 2010 20:06:45 GMT
As 3D movies are for me literally the case of paying more money for a slightly inferior viewing experience to a 2D movie (and are still in 2D as far as my brain can tell) I will probably give these a miss. This was an inevitable thing though - George Lucas rereleases Star Wars with every new format because it is a massive cash cow. From a business point of view it makes a lot of sense. From a creative point of view.... well., George Lucas has long since lost touch with the Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon roots of Star Wars anyway, it is mostly just a machine putting people in one and taking money out at the other, a bit like a sausage making machine. Not exactly a damning insult there at the end, Karl, given this forum's particular tastes. While your analysis may be correct from the mercenary George Lucas end of things, if the result of the exercise is that more people get to enjoy the films, either for the first time or in a new way, then it has to be a good thing. (Same as reprinting old TF comics in TPBs.) No-one's forced to go and see them. I'd just equate releasing Star Wars in 3D with reprinting Marvel TF stories on glossy paper. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 29, 2010 21:15:24 GMT
Hmmm, not quite the same analogy. It's as easy to read on newsprint as on glossy paper.
3-D is either very uncomfortable (for those who already wear spectacles) or impossible to see (for those with certain colour blindness or blind in one eye). Also, the 3-D picture quality is significantly darker than 2-D. And you have to keep your head rock steady (also very uncomfortable).
I am excluded from 3-D films on account of wearing spectacles. Asthetically, a darker picture doesn't appeal to me anway.
Though I see what your getting at. Buggered if I can put my finger on the appropriate metaphor.
I'm fine with Star Wars being re-released in cinemas. I'd love to see Empire Strikes Back again on a big screen, but unless it's also coming out again in 2-D I can't go to see it. But I hope 2 years from now that those who go see the 3-D versions enjoy them.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Sept 30, 2010 12:21:12 GMT
Not exactly a damning insult there at the end, Karl, given this forum's particular tastes. Not really meant to be, just the most apt metaphor that came into my tired brain at the end of the day. All I was trying to say was that this probably wasn't a creative decision on any level, purely a business one. And I wouldn't expect Lucasarts to be making decisions that weren't solidly based in business logic - they are a large company with interests to protect and something that will generate a low-risk cash-flow has to be attractive from a strategic point of view. Karl |
|
