Sign In

3d Conversions

Author
Time

Well, GL was converting 1 to 3d and I think it may have been finished but then he sold out to disney. Anyway, anyone think it was kinda a waste doing it on 1? It was ill recieved and re-releasing it could have hurt sales for the next one that would have come out probably 2 years later. Heck, 3D isn’t as popular anymore either so we may have never got the OT in 3D. How far do you think they would be if GL didn’t sell out to Disney?

Author
Time

The entire prelogy exists in 3D. TPM got a theatrical re-issue. AOTC got a “SW celebration” screening, and ROTS has never been showed (and would be the best entry to use 3D). I don’t know if 4-5-6 has been converted (but if they are scanning them in 4k quality they could push the work to make 3D versions out of them… however I don’t really see the point).

“I have to say that I felt George’s group of six films had more innovative visual imagination, and this film was more of a retrenchment to things you had seen before and characters you had seen before, and it took a few baby steps forward with new characters.” - James Cameron about Episode VII.

Author
Time

ROTS 3D was shown at Celebration in 2015.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

ROTS 3D was shown at Celebration in 2015.

It was, I was there.

I skipped the screening though because… why? I don’t see the point, really.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

ROTS 3D was shown at Celebration in 2015.

Oh I didn’t know that ! Thanks !

“I have to say that I felt George’s group of six films had more innovative visual imagination, and this film was more of a retrenchment to things you had seen before and characters you had seen before, and it took a few baby steps forward with new characters.” - James Cameron about Episode VII.

Author
Time

doubleofive said:

If you look at the Blu-ray Changes, almost every major change is something that would have been closer to the audience. I believe they did make the 3D OT, or at least started making changes to prep for it.

Suddenly I understand the extra R2 rock.

It’s still stupid, of course.

The Drink in Question

Author
Time

I actually saw TPM 3D with a friend of mine. Before it, I hadn’t watched any of the prequels in years and had mostly forgotten them save for a few scenes.

It was then when I realized that the prequels sucked.

The Drink in Question

Author
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:
It was then when I realized that the prequels sucked.

You catch on pretty quick.

“I have to say that I felt George’s group of six films had more innovative visual imagination, and this film was more of a retrenchment to things you had seen before and characters you had seen before, and it took a few baby steps forward with new characters.” - James Cameron about Episode VII.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I always prefer 2D showings; I just want to see the film, not be whizzed by a bunch of flyin’ whatsits!

Author
Time

Hal 9000 said:

I always prefer 2D showings; I just want to see the film, not be whizzed by a bunch of flyin’ whatsits!

Are you saying Friday the 13th Part 3 – with its stunning array of 3D effects involving yo-yos and incredibly fake popped eyeballs coming at you – doesn’t make you swoon with rapture?

STRANGE

Author
Time

I thought the 3D for Friday the 13th Part 3.9 - Rogue Jason One was quite good.

“I have to say that I felt George’s group of six films had more innovative visual imagination, and this film was more of a retrenchment to things you had seen before and characters you had seen before, and it took a few baby steps forward with new characters.” - James Cameron about Episode VII.

Author
Time

I’ll only see a movie in 3D if it was at least partially shot that way.

I’ve only intentionally broken that rule twice: Pacific Rim (digital Imax 3D, I later saw it again in regular sized 2D with a friend of mine) and Gravity (real-d). Well, I also saw Jupiter Ascending in real-d out of some misplaced sense of wanting to support The Wachowskis in their crazy space opera experiment that was guaranteed to flop. Maybe it would’ve looked better if I’d seen it in digital Imax 3D (this was right before they started rolling out the laser system), but I thought the post-converted live action looked terrible. The natively-rendered-in-stereo cg vfx sequences, as with any 3D movie, at least looked okay.

I honestly think 3D is mainly there to squeeze more money out of the movies that are gonna make a killing anyway. Pre-2009 there would be be three or four screens showing the same highly anticipated movie all at the same multiplex. Now, when you’ve got a big movie like The Avengers opening, two of those four screens are the 3D version. That means whoever didn’t get their 2D tickets early enough are stuck either waiting for a later showing or just seeing it in 3D, and whatya think they’re gonna do? That’s what happened when I saw Guardians of the Galaxy with my friends, and it wasn’t even opening weekend! At least it wasn’t their first time seeing it, and I ended up liking the movie so much anyway that I took a friend who hadn’t seen it to a 2D showing. The 3D version at least looked decently good.

So, yeah, that’s the one time I involuntarily broke my rule.

It’s frustrating to see the studios pushing the 3D versions of these 2D-shot blockbusters on us while giving the shaft to intentional 3D movies like Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk. That’s commerce, I guess.

The only shot-in-stereo movies I know of that are coming out this year are Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (entirely stereo, just like the last two) and Transformers 5 (mostly stereo, just like the last two). Alien: Covenant might have been shot in 3D but there’s nothing in the trailers or posters even advertising so much as real-d. Ridley Scott shot Prometheus, Exodus and The Martian all in native stereo, so it will be interesting to see whether or not he abandoned it for Alien: Covenant.

Author
Time

I saw 1 movie and 3d and there were a few cool moments. The opening where those 3d glasses were floating was pretty cool. Really showed off the 3d.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

GOTG turned out to be a good conversion and they actually played with things busting out of the widescreen frame. Most conversions and even true stereoscopic films made today are unwilling to do that. The great 3D flicks of the 50’s were not afraid to throw things at the audience. The 3D projection technology today could give those classics new life, (free of the technical glitches that plagued them originally) but the studios aren’t reviving them like they should.

I sadly can’t recall any great pop out moments in Rogue One.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I remember the tip of a Star Destroyer popping out well in TFA (saw it 3D simply because it was earlier than the 2D show… and souvenir glasses).

The Drink in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

suspiciouscoffee said:

I remember the tip of a Star Destroyer popping out well in TFA (saw it 3D simply because it was earlier than the 2D show… and souvenir glasses).

Yeah there’s that one shot

because of the telephoto lens you don’t think much of in 2D but in 3D it looks like the tip is going to stab you in the eye. I remember gasps in the theater when I saw that shot in 3D.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I remember the tip of a Star Destroyer popping out well in TFA (saw it 3D simply because it was earlier than the 2D show… and souvenir glasses).

Yeah there’s that one shot

because of the telephoto lens you don’t think much of in 2D but in 3D it looks like the tip is going to stab you in the eye. I remember gasps in the theater when I saw that shot in 3D.

it is things like this (and what i derisively call gimmicks) that make me dislike 3D films. I feel like it makes the whole movie viewing experience take on a ‘wrong’ perspective to have parts of the screen come out at you. added depth i am OK with, but not the other way.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I remember the tip of a Star Destroyer popping out well in TFA (saw it 3D simply because it was earlier than the 2D show… and souvenir glasses).

Yeah there’s that one shot

because of the telephoto lens you don’t think much of in 2D but in 3D it looks like the tip is going to stab you in the eye. I remember gasps in the theater when I saw that shot in 3D.

it is things like this (and what i derisively call gimmicks) that make me dislike 3D films. I feel like it makes the whole movie viewing experience take on a ‘wrong’ perspective to have parts of the screen come out at you. added depth i am OK with, but not the other way.

You wouldn’t have enjoyed the 50’s 3D wave very much then. 😉

And everything from color to sound to widescreen has been dismissed as gimmicks. And the wheel has turned such that when the rare black and white or 1.33 aspect film is made, it’s scoffed as a gimmick now.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I remember the tip of a Star Destroyer popping out well in TFA (saw it 3D simply because it was earlier than the 2D show… and souvenir glasses).

Yeah there’s that one shot

because of the telephoto lens you don’t think much of in 2D but in 3D it looks like the tip is going to stab you in the eye. I remember gasps in the theater when I saw that shot in 3D.

it is things like this (and what i derisively call gimmicks) that make me dislike 3D films. I feel like it makes the whole movie viewing experience take on a ‘wrong’ perspective to have parts of the screen come out at you. added depth i am OK with, but not the other way.

You wouldn’t have enjoyed the 50’s 3D wave very much then. 😉

And everything from color to sound to widescreen has been dismissed as gimmicks. And the wheel has turned such that when the rare black and white or 1.33 aspect film is made, it’s scoffed as a gimmick now.

😃 yeah, i am fully aware that my calling it a gimmick probably make me old and grumpy (that is why i tried to acknowledge that it is me being derisive when i say it). but gosh darn it, i knows what i likes. and what i don’ts.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I remember the tip of a Star Destroyer popping out well in TFA (saw it 3D simply because it was earlier than the 2D show… and souvenir glasses).

Yeah there’s that one shot

because of the telephoto lens you don’t think much of in 2D but in 3D it looks like the tip is going to stab you in the eye. I remember gasps in the theater when I saw that shot in 3D.

I gasped because the wipe into it was so disorienting in 3D.

“005 is super hep” - dahmage

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress / Facebook / Twitter

005’s List of List & Comparisons

Author
Time

3D is the best with VR goggles. I can’t stand glasses 3D because you have to stare directly at the screen and can’t fidget at all, but with VR you can move however you want.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Wazzles said:

3D is the best with VR goggles. I can’t stand glasses 3D because you have to stare directly at the screen and can’t fidget at all, but with VR you can move however you want.

My brother and I were talking about how VR is probably the future in terms of cinema as we were leaving Rogue One. You could basically just sit in a tiny cubicle and get the full theater sized experience (Getting that experience on the couch would be the death knell of theaters, I think), or even 360-degree video. Not to mention working 3D from any angle and all that.

Of course, that would ruin shot composition and you could just watch some extra in the background and ignore the point of the movie… either way it’ll be an interesting move forward.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

I don’t think VR is the future of cinema at all. The language is completely different. So different, I’d say it’s another medium entirely. Will its popularity increase? Certainly. But it won’t supplant traditional cinema. It’ll just be a separate thing.