3D STAR WARS for the masses...has ARRIVED! — Page 7

haraldo23 said:

TV's Frink said:

haraldo23 said:

I didn't see OT in theatres, because I was very, very... semen at that time.

Thanks for sharing!

:p

You sound kind of irritated, is that because of the word semen or because I didn't see Star Wars on the big screen? Cause if that's because of the last one then - what can I possibly do? I wasn't as lucky as you guys...

Perhaps if you'd said you weren't yet "an itch in your daddy's pants", that would be more... less icky :)

CO said:

Wow, I can honestly say that this will be another SW release by Lucas that I won't be apart of.  If you would have told me this about 10-15 years ago that I wouldn't give a shit about anything SW-related, I would have said you're crazy.

 

Same. Any new Star Wars-related stuff is just a turn-off now.

Bingowings said:

I'd watch PT+SE3D out of interest but not until George restores the OUT2D.

I'm really trying not to dwell on the fact that the cost of converting 3 FUCKING MINUTES of Episode I would cover a great blu-ray of Star Wars '77.

As far as George is concerned all that 1997 proved is that to re-release the films he has to have a gimmick.

I always get a kick out of hearing complaints about 3D. It reminds me of the newspaper articles from when sound and then colour was invented. Literally, its almost verbatim the same sort of phrasing. Of course, a lot of early sound films had terrible, tinny audio, and some early colour films had poor, gimmicky colour effects. Done right, and done enough times, and you don't think about it as a gimmick because you aren't paying attention to it anymore. As far as 3D goes, most films try to draw attention to the effect, because that is why you are paying the premium price to see it. A lot of early sound and colour films had similar marketing philosophy. Then after a while, everyone was doing it, audiences got used to it, and then peope stopped trying to outdo each other in gimmicks and audiences simultaneously stopped paying conscious attention to it.

Ironically, the situation is now reversed--because people are used to colour and sound, if you do part of movie silent or in black and white, it is seen as being self-consciously stylistic, or maybe even gimmicky or pretentious. I have this sneaking suspicion that this will apply to 2D films ("flat pictures"?) at some point in the distant but not too distant future.

Mielr said:

I saw this announcement on ABC's World News Now last night.

Attack Of The Clones and Jedi Rocks in 3D........wow. I'm getting on line right now.
;-P

Sy Snoodles's lips right in your face!  That other singing Yuzzem with phlegm flying everywhere!

*sigh*

I don't know if I trust George enough not to add further shots just dangle things in front of the audience.

zombie84 said:

I always get a kick out of hearing complaints about 3D. It reminds me of the newspaper articles from when sound and then colour was invented. Literally, its almost verbatim the same sort of phrasing. Of course, a lot of early sound films had terrible, tinny audio, and some early colour films had poor, gimmicky colour effects. Done right, and done enough times, and you don't think about it as a gimmick because you aren't paying attention to it anymore. As far as 3D goes, most films try to draw attention to the effect, because that is why you are paying the premium price to see it. A lot of early sound and colour films had similar marketing philosophy. Then after a while, everyone was doing it, audiences got used to it, and then peope stopped trying to outdo each other in gimmicks and audiences simultaneously stopped paying conscious attention to it.

Ironically, the situation is now reversed--because people are used to colour and sound, if you do part of movie silent or in black and white, it is seen as being self-consciously stylistic, or maybe even gimmicky or pretentious. I have this sneaking suspicion that this will apply to 2D films ("flat pictures"?) at some point in the distant but not too distant future.

You're probably right, but I can't stand to watch a colorized film, and to me, converting something shot in 2D into 3D is the same thing.  I refuse to see it.

This doesn't just go for Star Wars.  This goes for Clash of the Titans, Harry Potter 7/8, and Toy Story 1/2, as well.  I refuse to watch any black-and-white film that's been colorized, and I'll refuse to watch any 2D film that's been "converted" to 3D, as well.

Also, Pixar's version of 3D is very tasteful and restrained, limited solely to presenting a wider and more immersive environment.  There is absolutely no gimmicky throwing things in your face or anything of that nature, and you hardly notice the effect at all after a while, it just becomes a natural part of the image.

The same can't be said about many other 3D movies, unfortunately, which is why I usually avoid them.  That, and having to wear those goramn glasses over my real glasses is uncomfortable, so I only go to 3D for movies I'm really interested in.  The prequels and special editions don't even remotely qualify for that, although I'll admit to having a little bit of morbid curiosity.  But I'd still rather watch the GOUT with all its flaws than give in to any of the revisionist rubbish, no matter how shiny the presentation.

zombie84 said:

I always get a kick out of hearing complaints about 3D. It reminds me of the newspaper articles from when sound and then colour was invented. Literally, its almost verbatim the same sort of phrasing. Of course, a lot of early sound films had terrible, tinny audio, and some early colour films had poor, gimmicky colour effects. Done right, and done enough times, and you don't think about it as a gimmick because you aren't paying attention to it anymore. As far as 3D goes, most films try to draw attention to the effect, because that is why you are paying the premium price to see it. A lot of early sound and colour films had similar marketing philosophy. Then after a while, everyone was doing it, audiences got used to it, and then peope stopped trying to outdo each other in gimmicks and audiences simultaneously stopped paying conscious attention to it.

Ironically, the situation is now reversed--because people are used to colour and sound, if you do part of movie silent or in black and white, it is seen as being self-consciously stylistic, or maybe even gimmicky or pretentious. I have this sneaking suspicion that this will apply to 2D films ("flat pictures"?) at some point in the distant but not too distant future.

Sound and colour do not require wearing glasses with polarised lenses. Once that can be overcome, I basically agree that 3D has a chance to become de facto rather than de jour.

I have to wear glasses and false teeth to experience the real world in 4D.

Boo.*

Yeah, I'm not really interested in these.  I've not seen a modern 3D movie in theaters or at home, though, so maybe that's why I don't give a shit.

Just had a thought.

Will Lucas take this opportunity to finally unveil the new CGI Yoda, or will he do that with the blu-rays?

I imagine it will be the one that comes first (presumably the blu-ray).

New Yoda....gasp! (same crap movie) New Yoda in 3D....gasp! (say didn't I just buy this crap movie...again?).