logo Sign In

Star Wars In 3D — Page 2

Author
Time
So, does anybody remember the lenticular 3D Star Wars cards from '97 or so? The depth effects on those were impressive considering they were working from 2d film frames. It still bugs me to this day with all the merchandising you can think of in existence, George never thought about having viewmaster reels shot on the set.
Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Heh, yeah, I have many of those, but I do not have a projector to ever view them on. I only got to see them once, when I was visiting my aunt and uncle, but that was a long time ago.

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
Man I have almost all of the 3D cards from ANH. I remember back then I was convinced the SE 97 release was going to be in 3D.

Then when it came out I thought, yeah Star Wars in 3D is too much to hope for I guess.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Article appeared today updating on the movie-studio-3D rumours:

More movies to be offered in 3-D
By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer Mon Apr 9, 1:50 PM ET
LOS ANGELES - By the end of the decade, Darth Vader could be rattling sabers with his enemies above the heads of moviegoers, and Buzz Lightyear could be flying off the screen on his way to infinity and beyond.

For real — or at least the cinematic version of real: 3-D.

A growing number of blockbuster, live-action films and animated movies are expected to be offered in in-your-face 3-D in the next few years, as thousands of theaters are outfitted with the special projectors and screens needed to show the films.

Jeffrey Katzenberg, chief executive of DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., is so gung-ho about 3-D that he has said his studio might start exclusively releasing movies in the format as early as 2009 with its "Monsters vs. Aliens."

"For Memorial Day weekend 2009, I would like to see 3,800 locations and 6,000 screens that we can put our movie on. And if they are there, then we will be exclusive in 3-D," Katzenberg said at a recent investors conference.

So far, moviegoers have reacted positively to the few 3-D films that have been released in recent years.

"Meet the Robinsons" from The Walt Disney Co. debuted March 30, earning $25.1 million in its opening weekend.

More than a quarter of that revenue came from the 581 screens across the country that showed the film in 3-D, the company said. Those moviegoers were even willing to pay a few extra bucks to don special glasses and watch characters leave the screen.

A number of high-profile filmmakers have 3-D projects in the works, including Peter Jackson, Robert Zemeckis and James Cameron.

Walt Disney Co. has released 3-D versions of three animated films and recently signed a deal with Zemeckis to produce more. The studio is also rumored to be making the sequel "Toy Story 3" in 3-D, a report the studio declined to confirm.

These days, 3-D films are more than just a gimmick.

For theater owners and studios, the technology could be a lifesaver, luring people back to multiplexes for an experience that cannot be matched by sophisticated home-theater systems or stolen by pirates with hidden camcorders.

The theater industry is also battling competition from video games and other alternative entertainment along with Internet downloads that will soon deliver high-definition films directly to homes.

Film exhibition companies looking to protect their business believe 3-D will boost revenue. Some industry executives think theaters can add as much as 50 percent to the cost of a ticket for a 3-D feature.

"If we can sell 10 percent to 15 percent of our tickets annually at a higher price point, that's a real mover of the needle," Mike Campbell, chief executive of Regal Entertainment Group, the nation's largest theater chain, said at the investors conference.

About 700 theaters across the country are now outfitted with 3-D technology, with thousands of others moving to spend the $17,000 needed to install the equipment.

Moviemakers, meanwhile, estimate that making a movie in 3-D can add as much as $15 million to the cost.

Today's 3-D technology is far more advanced than that used in the 1950s, the heyday of gimmicky 3-D films.

Previous 3-D systems projected two images on the movie screen, one for each eye. That required the use of red and blue lenses or even glasses with mechanized shutters that opened and closed quickly to separate the images.

With newer systems, moviegoers still need to don special glasses but not the cheap cardboard variety with blue and red lenses.

Instead, special polarized lenses will separate the stereo images projected on specially coated screens.

RealD, a Beverly Hills company, is the leader in modern 3-D with systems that will be operating on about 1,000 screens by the end of the year.

Its technology uses a special movie screen painted with a silver oxide to direct more light back to the viewer instead of scattering wavelengths the way normal screens do.

The theaters also use digital projectors that show movies stored in bits on a computer hard disk rather than traditional film.

Dolby Laboratories Inc. recently unveiled plans to market its own 3-D technology that would work with existing movie screens.

"The momentum is gathering, and I think this is probably the most exciting thing from a filmmaking and filmgoing experience that has happened in my time in the business," Katzenberg said. "There's nothing more compelling than this."


I saw "Nightmare Before Christmas" in 3D too, so i doubt "Darth Vader could be rattling sabers with his enemies above the heads of moviegoers" but rather rattling sabers INSIDE the boundaries of the movie screen
Author
Time
I liked this line, "For theater owners and studios, the technology could be a lifesaver, luring people back to multiplexes for an experience that cannot be matched by sophisticated home-theater systems or stolen by pirates with hidden camcorders."

I wonder if after they realize the 3D thing isn't increasing their audience that they will stop blaming their plight on "pirates with hidden camcorders". Seriously, who really watches cams of a movie they have wanted to see rather than going to the theater. A more likely scenario is that they wait for it to come to video so they can rent in a watchable quality and save themselves from leaving the cinema disappointed and $10 bucks poorer. 3D is not just a gimmick anymore? Please! Pay a few extra bucks for the glasses? Lets not start that again. Isn't ten bucks to see your film steep enough? Though it would be kind of cool to see Gore's polar bears charging out of the screen in search of colder weather.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
"For theater owners and studios, the technology could be a lifesaver, luring people back to multiplexes for an experience that cannot be matched by sophisticated home-theater systems or stolen by pirates with hidden camcorders."

You mean they're going to eliminate ringing cell phones, ads before the movie (I paid for the movie, not the ads), and people talking/screaming through the movie? Those are the top 3 reasons I don't go to movies anymore. It's so much easier to wait for the movie to come to video and watch it then. And yes, it's a lot cheaper too, especially considering that it doesn't just cost me $10. It costs me $20 (wife and I) and then if the movie totally blows, I'm out $20 and 2 hours. If we rent a movie that stinks, we can turn it off and we're only out $3.

I may not have a massive theater screen (50" HDTV) or an awesome sound system (we use the built-in speakers), but it beats listening to people talk through a movie or answer their cell phone any day.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: lordjedi
"For theater owners and studios, the technology could be a lifesaver, luring people back to multiplexes for an experience that cannot be matched by sophisticated home-theater systems or stolen by pirates with hidden camcorders."

You mean they're going to eliminate ringing cell phones, ads before the movie (I paid for the movie, not the ads), and people talking/screaming through the movie? Those are the top 3 reasons I don't go to movies anymore. It's so much easier to wait for the movie to come to video and watch it then. And yes, it's a lot cheaper too, especially considering that it doesn't just cost me $10. It costs me $20 (wife and I) and then if the movie totally blows, I'm out $20 and 2 hours. If we rent a movie that stinks, we can turn it off and we're only out $3.

I may not have a massive theater screen (50" HDTV) or an awesome sound system (we use the built-in speakers), but it beats listening to people talk through a movie or answer their cell phone any day.


Exactly! Actually I am married too, so I am in the same boat as you with paying for two ticket. I said ten bucks because that is the case of most people. But yeah, those of us taking our wives, dates, or even worse children to the movies are out at least twice as much. Imagine taking the whole family to the movies, if you have two kids you'll be out at least forty buck per movie. Renting is the way to go. You said you use the built in speakers on your TV, is the sound pretty good? I bought one of those cheap 5.1 surround sets with the sub woofer from Wal-Mart for $30, it is a cheap set but I think it sounds great. Better than my build in speakers and only ten bucks more than a trip to the movies.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape