logo Sign In

Star Wars In 3D

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
Well, recently in a town close to mine they showed 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' in 3D. First movie that I know of recently that made the change using the new technology that Lucasfilm was involved in. I must say... I was impressed. It is not normal 3D, it is more of a perspective 3D that makes thing appear as if they are all in front of you. Anyway, my point is that I feel that Lucas will do Star Wars in 3D and, even with the newly enhanced special effects, it could be quite an experience. My bad if anybody mentioned this already, but if not, lemme know if anyone saw the new 3D technology and if anyone thinks he'll (Lucas) release the trilogy in 3D.
Author
Time
Post link
That's awesome that you got to check out the new 3D technology. What were the 3D glasses like? Have you had the chance to see any recent IMAX movies in 3D? If so, how does it compare?

Lucas and McCallum have stated that they want to do all 6 films in 3D (Jackson wants to do all three LOTR movies as well), but it doesn't make sense to start releasing them until there are more theaters with digital projectors, which could take a few years.

My Projects:
[Holiday Special Hybrid DVD v2]
[X0 Project]
[Backstroke of the West DVD]
[ROTS Theatrical DVD]

Author
Time
Post link
The 3D glasses looked like some nerdy style glasses. I appears like there are two lenses in each eye, I'll take a picture and post it tomorrow... it is a completely different kind of 3D. Nothing 'pops' out. Instead it is layered. It is as if the scenery is in the back while a hill could be closer and a person walking would be out front. It is like your perspective if you were looking at it in real life. It is cool. No I haven't seen any new 3D IMAX films. Even if it seems a little premature I think the sooner the better. Although I'll probably only be seeing 3 of the 6 movies in 3D.
Author
Time
Post link
Star Wars will be in 3D, they just have to wait for more theaters to adopt digital projection to make it worth the cost of doing it.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Star Wars will be in 3D, they just have to wait for more theaters to adopt digital projection to make it worth the cost of doing it. Yeah, um, that's exactly what I just said genius.

Originally posted by: 5acrifice
The 3D glasses looked like some nerdy style glasses. I appears like there are two lenses in each eye, I'll take a picture and post it tomorrow... it is a completely different kind of 3D. Nothing 'pops' out. Instead it is layered. It is as if the scenery is in the back while a hill could be closer and a person walking would be out front. It is like your perspective if you were looking at it in real life. It is cool.
Well that already sounds way better than the IMAX 3D which I believe is just the traditional 3D approach with certain things that pop out. Though some of the scenes from Superman Returns were still pretty impressive. I heard some crazy things about the glasses in the past like they're super expensive and heavy and theaters are going to lose money because everyone's going to be stealing them. Is any of that even true from what you could tell?

My Projects:
[Holiday Special Hybrid DVD v2]
[X0 Project]
[Backstroke of the West DVD]
[ROTS Theatrical DVD]

Author
Time
Post link
I didn't say that second paragraph you quoted, super smarty pants.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
When I saw Nightmare yesterday (on Halloween), I too was impressed with the 3-D technology to not be garish. It just made it seem as if there was more "punch" to the image, and some of the stuff looked more "multi-planed." I think it made the film look better, even though I was apprehensive that the left eye would be seeing a digital scan of the original photography.

My caveat is that the multi-plane effect achieved looks fine with animation, but might look stupid with live photography. The multi-plane effect made things look layered, but the layered objects themselves still looked incredibly flat.


I think this technology is a boon to animation, but I don't think it will work as well with live films like Star Wars.







Though 99.7% animated films like the prequels should work fine!





Edited to add: The glasses were given away, there was no need to steal them. They are obviously cheap enough to include in the already-hefty theater admission.
Author
Time
Post link
I saw Nightmare too and it looked really good. And like people have said it's not a type of 3D where it jumps out at you but instead as a more rel look of depth to it. fully this will transcend well for the upcoming Star Wars 3D project. Monster house used the same projection system I think. But considering Nightmare made 3D after the fact, it hopefully will work with the films. But didn't McCallum a couple of months ago say they were still working on the technology? This was even after Disney's plans for Nightmare.
There's good in the Original Trilogy, and it's worth fighting for.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
http://www.myspace.com/harlock415
Author
Time
Post link
If anyone knows anything more about the technical details behind this, I'd love to hear them. I've seen a few IMAX films and it always annoyed me that, as well as making it 3D, they brought the whole picture forward until it seems to be just a few feet in front of you - it somewhat takes away the impact of the massive screen.

So is this now a much more subtle effect? Some of you say it's much more realistic, then some say it's more like layered animation. Are the glasses polarised?

DE
Author
Time
Post link
IMO, they should've done a different movie. I love Nightmare but I feel as if it would be cooler to see actual Live Film in 3D. The glasses aren't heavy and exspensive, they gave them out for free and you could keep em.
Author
Time
Post link
I guess they aren't too worried about people stealing them then.

This sounds like a fantastic way to make the theater experience a cut above what you can get at home again.

I might pay $10 for a candy bar for something like that.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Is this the same technique used for Monster House 3-D? I saw that when it came out and still have the glasses. That was an interesting experience and the movie was great. Now, what would you do with the glasses? Sure, it's a nice momento, but there's no way they can release a DVD with that technology on it can they?
Author
Time
Post link
Monster House sucked in every sense of the word.

I saw Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-D too, and it was great fun. I still have the glasses as a souvenier, and they were very confortable, fitting easily over my glasses, and easy on the eyes. This new kind of 3-d rocks. It doesn't give headaches or eye aches, and none of it is blurry. It feels like watching a stage show. It simply immerses you in the experiance, and I think Star Wars in 3-d would be cool. Releasing Star Wars again in theaters normal would be awesome, but it would be even more worth it in 3-d, because it would be something totally new.

And in response to Casualimp, they have released 3-d movies on DVD. Spy Kids 3 was on DVD in 3-D, albiet a red and blue scheme, which must be 50 year old technology by now. They might not be able to do polarized on DVD, but they can do 3-D.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
I thought Monster House was great and had a much more complicated and poignant plot than most "children's" fare out there lately.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Complicated? Poigant? Oh my god, what has this country come to? If Monster House is complicated and poigant, then I am a leopard with herpes. We've seen this story a million times. Some beloved dies, takes over a physical material, terrorizes young protaginists. Young protagnists defeat said dead beloved and restore peace. Wow. That's new. Yes, all children's fare is crap nowadays, (most of it) but Monster House is just as much crap as the rest of it. Only standout kids films this year have been Cars and Over the Hedge, which were both lots of fun for the whole family.

Monster House's main problem is that it has no audience in mind. Adults won't like it because its kiddy and cheesy. Teens won't like it because its cheesy enough to vomit at and doesn't have blood and guts. Little ones won't like it because its scary. 7-12 year olds might be the suggested age range, but what can they find in it? Even they'd like something more exciting. It has no audience in mind, and it crashes and burns. I can't believe people were actually calling it the next Goonies. THAT was a kids movie. Every kid could relate to it in some way. Not Monster House. At all. A monkey smoking dope could have come up with the plot.

Back on the topic of 3-D....I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Borat should be in 3-D!
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
Well, I enjoyed it. Do I think it's a cinematic wonder and on track to be the next Citizen Kane? No. But I thought it was a fun couple of hours at a movie theatre. And I said it was more complicated and poignant than most children's movies.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Hmmm, I have heard good things about Over the Hedge which I expected to be terrible, and bad things about Monster House which I expected to be good.


Must Netflix both.



Doesn't change my feeling that 3-D works best with animation. I didn't manage to see the short version of Superman Returns in 3-D, so I don't really have any evidence to back that up. Just an impression I got from the Nightmare B4 Xmas screening.
Author
Time
Post link
I can't wait. I've never seen Star Wars or Empire in theaters and I was only 2 years old when I saw Jedi. Does anyone know how they are going to do it? Like one film a year or will it be like the Special Editions and one a month?
http://img416.imageshack.us/img416/7823/starwarssuppersmallerxx5.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: 5acrifice
The 3D glasses looked like some nerdy style glasses. I appears like there are two lenses in each eye


Sounds kinda like the ones used at the Star Trek Expierence Borg 3-D ride. Those weren't too heavy but if I recall right they weren't all that comfortable either.

http://img416.imageshack.us/img416/7823/starwarssuppersmallerxx5.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
The thing is, the glasses were perfectly comfortable, and when I say they are nerdy its just cause the lenses are big and silly looking. Something cool about them, if you look at someone you see your reflection, but if you're wearing them and look at someone with them on you can see through the lenses. The movie also did not really blur that much at all and it wasn't too bad on the eyes, every maybe 45 min to an hour you may have to take them off for a second.
Author
Time
Post link
There were only a couple of instances of "ghosting" that's been typical with 3-D till now. I found it remarkably approaching perfection.
Author
Time
Post link
the concept of 3-d is a bad idea...look at I love the 80s 3-d; so i would not be so sure about the new 3-d myself. And what if Lucas then insists that the SW saga was meant to be filmed in 3-D?
Author
Time
Post link
Eh, George has said a lot of stuff about how things are supposed to be. And, as usual, we'll just smile, nod, pat him on the head, and hope he shuts up.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
You can bet your ass he'll say that. He'll say "I always wanted people to see this in more than normal 2-D could offer, but due to budgetry constraints....yadda yadda."

Seriously, someone should just staple his mouth shut.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.