Star Wars Films In 3D Due In 2012

bowman9991 writes "Star Wars creator George Lucas is converting all six films from his iconic science fiction saga into 3D and will re-release them in theatres in 2012. 'Episode I: The Phantom Menace' will be released first."

Comments

Oh no. Not again.

[ColdWetDog]

I have a very bad feeling about this.

4th post

[Anonymous Coward]

The first 3 sucked

Again? Seriously?

[Cplus]

Fuck you, George Lucas. Fuck you.

Re:Again? Seriously?

[Cplus]

You're taking this all too seriously. Everything's cool.

Oh, no!

[scotts13]

As if the prequel films didn't ALREADY cause massive headaches...

Its a TRAP!

[nweaver]

Its A Trap!
-Ackbar

All you haters ...

[l0ungeb0y]

All you haters are just jealous that you don't have your own multi-billion dollar franchise to rape over and over and over and over and over and over again

Re:All you haters ...

[vlad30]

Not jealous, this is why copyrights should be limited to 7-14yrs Lucas would have to create something new instead of rerelease

Re:All you haters ...

[internettoughguy]

Why stop with 7-14 years? With no copyright he must create something new directly after the old one leaves the theater, plus the DVDs of the old ones would not be so horrible expensive.

Before someone comes with the stupid argument for copyright, all movies makes their money in the theaters and you can't just copy the theaters.

Hang on a sec; why would the theatres pay the distributors if this were the case?

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[timeOday]

I agree, I don't think the older 3 Star Wars films stand up as modern sci-fi because they feel small (due to the lack of CGI), and the new ones just aren't that interesting.

The first two are still very good when viewed as vintage films (which they are). But splicing in CGI here and there (and, I predict, adding 3d) makes them uneven and a pushes them into areas where they can't compete against contemporary films.

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[nmb3000]

Oh, I don't know. It sounds somewhat promising.

Maybe the plots and characters will actually have some depth in these new versions!

Adding depth

[atomicstrawberry]

I guess Lucas got tired of people saying his films lack depth and are filled with flat, two-dimensional characters.

Re:ugh!

[Tablizer]

Wouldn't that be Jar Jar Jar Binks now?

Phantom menace will be released first.

[seeker_1us]

It's logical. In 2d it sucked to the second power. Now it will suck to the third.

Ya

[Sycraft-fu]

It seems to me if somethign wasn't shot in 3D, the conversion is going to be very bad. To the extent 3D works for movies at all, it is in situations like Avatar where it was shot entirely for 3D and more or less the move just has depth. It kinda looks like there's a hole in the wall of the theater, rather than a screen. Ok, fine. However if the movie wasn't shot in 3D, you can't do that. You can't capture that depth data you don't already have. So what does that mean? It means cheesy effects. Means most of the movie will be 2D with some really noticeable, and annoying, moments when somethign pops out of the screen at you.

While I'm not a fan of this 3D trend overall and I think it'll be a passing fad, I'm ok with movies properly shot for 3D. At least then it can gain something, it isn't a gimmick, just a way to try and make things more interesting. However I really don't like 3D when it is stupid and gimmicky, the "Hey look! This is in 3D! Are you not amazed?" No, I'm not, knock it off.

Unfortunately I have to imagine that is what this will be since I can't see any way of making it anything else. The original films were shot with only one camera, there just isn't the stereoscopic data there.

Re:Ya

[daveime]

It will never be a "passing fad" when the cinemas can charge DOUBLE for the privilege of watching it in 3D, and there are morons willing to pay it.

Reminds me of post on Failbook a while back ...

Person 1: I've just seen Avatar in 3D, it was awesome. I wish the whole world was 3D.
Person 2: It is.

Re:Ya

[SteeldrivingJon]

In theory, the CGI content of the prequels could be re-rendered for genuine 3D, with the two camera viewpoints. Scenes that are entirely CGI ought to look great.

Then the 2D elements like the actors, and the 1D elements, like Hayden Christensen, could be composited in and, if necessary, plumped up with faux-3D.

Which might have a somewhat better result than if the completed, final frames of the films are used as input to the simulated 3D process. Which is pretty much what I think will have to be done with the original three films.

Re:Ya

[visgoth]

I saw the remake of Clash of the Titans in "3d" and it was put through a 2d to 3d conversion. The greedy producers had all the existing footage converted to stereo 3d, and the result was craptacular. At best stuff looked three dimensional the way looking into a viewmaster was "three dimensional". At worst it was causing me eyestrain and headaches, although the headaches could have been due to the total shitfest that the movie itself was. If a similar technique is being employed for the Star Wars re-re-re-release than its likely going to have the same strange viewmaster looking effect.

Re:Ya

[txoof]

Movies that properly use the 3D format to enhance the experience, rather than simply chuck crap out of the screen are stunning. Avatar was filmed in 3D, properly, but really was just a gimmick to draw in crowds and immerse them in a spectacular alien world without much substance. The film adaptation of Neil Gaiman's Coraline, on the other hand, was astounding. There were only a few instances of stuff jumping out of the screen and it never felt forced. Instead, the film allowed you to more naturally live the in the world of Coraline. For much of the movie, the 3D takes a back seat to the actual story. It only becomes apparent in some truly stunning moments. In one incredible shot, the camera follows a circus mouse on a ball down a ramp. The shot is filmed entirely through the perspective of the mouse. The subtle beauty, craftsmanship and incredible detail of that scene was definitely enhanced by the use of 3D.

I'd like to see more moving making where 3D enhances the film rather than depends on it. I can't see how the original Star Wars movies will be enhanced, other than more crap flying out of the screen. I can already see the Death Star lazer beam shot at Alderan: Interrior of death star with hokey enhanced laser beam and artificially (poorly) deepened beam chamber; cut to exterior and newly rendered death star (poorly mapped onto a sphere); cut to shot looking right into dish-of-death as the beam flies out into the audience.

Vomit.

Though, Luke's bombing run might not completely suck if they go back and re-render the whole thing so it is actually in 3D rather than 3D-ifeyed.

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[nmb3000]

By the way, if you haven't seen the Red Letter Media Star Wars reviews yet, shame on you. At the least, set aside an hour and watch the Phantom Menace review. He goes above and beyond a normal video review (Menace is an hour, Clones is almost 90 minutes) explaining exactly why the movies fail so horribly.

The Star Trek movie reviews are also fantastic -- even better than the Star Wars ones, I think. Funny as hell, dead on the mark, and well worth the time to watch them.

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[BonquiquiShiquavius]

Seriously...is there any other film franchise out there that blatantly squeezes more money out of its fans? I myself am not a real Star Wars fan, but even I'm disgusted at the constant re-releases / special editions / extra special editions with 23 extra seconds of never before seen footage. The VHS/DVD/BluRay upgrade cycle for the exact same movie is bad enough. I mean, I know the fans who keep buying into this shit are the ultimate ones to blame...but who do you hate more...the crackhead or the asshole dealer that will do anything to enable and string out the addict until there's nothing left?

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[bennomatic]

Star Wars isn't alone. Lord of the Rings has something like a dozen editions. Blade Runner has so many director's cuts, I've decided Ridley Scott must be schizophrenic. Even Memento has a version where it tells the story chronological order. I don't know why I bought three copies.

We can dream.

[mark72005]

Maybe the new editions of episodes 1-3 won't suck?

Re:We can dream.

[Z34107]

Maybe the new editions of episodes 1-3 won't suck?

I heard the 3D release will give Jar-Jar's tired character more depth.

Re:We can dream.

[J.J. Dane]

"I heard the 3D release will give Jar-Jar's tired character more depth."

So would dumping him in the ocean somewhere in the first 5 minutes

Re:We can dream.

[Linker3000]

I hear those episodes have to be watched with special glasses - one eyepiece is tinted full black and the other is...full black too. This apparently makes the whole viewing experience of these films much much better.

Re:We can dream.

[maxwell demon]

They replaced Jar-Jar with Nar-Nar, because they figured .NET is more modern than Java.

2d to 3d???

[loki_tiwaz]

how the hell do you turn a fully 2d primary source into 3d? and 3d that doesn't make you want to scream 'FAKE!'...

if anyone can post a link in reply to my post showing that from a single 2d image source a 3d image can be created that doesn't look a bit wonky i'll stfu. sure, piece of cake converting all that 3d graphics to stereoscopic, but, and maybe i am not understanding the filming process with that expensive 70mm cinema type film, but there is definitely only one 'good' copy of all the shots in 2d, there isn't inadvertently gonna suddenly be a second one... i mean, i would guess you could work on something if there was a second cam recording at the same time at a slightly different but convergent view, but really, you'd have to have one on each side, that could give you a volume model that could let you do the 3d but even still... i call bullshit on converting star wars to 3d. i don't see how it could be done. i'd love to know how such a thing could be done. 3d won't work if you can't flesh out the occluded parts that you see to the left and right of the 2d original.

Obligatory...

[SuluSulu]

Noooooooooooooooo!!!

Re:Oh crap.

[sithkhan]

They will be counteracted by the hot grits in the pants.

Good Timing....

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I think this is the first article about 2012 I've read that actually makes the Mayan apocalypse predictions sound appealing. Here's hoping the calendar runs out before Lucas's patience does...

So... What?

[Shadow Wrought]

Greedo now shoots YOU first?

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[Amarantine]

but who do you hate more...the crackhead or the asshole dealer that will do anything to enable and string out the addict until there's nothing left?

I think the correct SW line would be: who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[daveime]

William Shatner, is that, you ?

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[beav007]

This is not the line that you are looking for.

*handwave*

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[Fembot]

Probably kept forgetting where he put them!

2D + depth map = 3D!

[DrXym]

2D to 3D conversion is rapidly becoming the modern day equivalent of colorization of black and white films. I wonder how long before "now in 3D!" becomes as distasteful as "now in color!".

The conversion process is basically the computational equivalent of vacuum forming the 2D image over a depth map. Depending on the fidelity of the models that generate the depth map, the effect will vary between passable and looking like cardboard cutouts in a diorama.

From a technical point of view it will be interesting to see how Lucasfilm deal with the conversion. I think the conversion will be abysmal in the first 3 movies with lots of crappy dust & particle effects tossed in and some reshot CG. Potentially the 3D could be more passable on the prequels depending on how far they go. Most of the prequel scenes are pure CG or composite live action and CG so in theory all these scenes could be rerendered. I think in practice though that probably only a fraction will get the full treatment and the remainder will under go a 2D + depth map process.

Re:Fake 3D?

[maxwell demon]

I saw Nightmare Before Christmas (filmed in 2D) in 3D. However, I can't comment on how good it was because I don't tend to be able to see the effect. It just doesn't work for me, instead it becomes blurry.

Must have been the 3D goggles. They obviously did nothing.

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[MichaelSmith]

Yes I am sure you would hate that, just like rain on your wedding day...

Squeezing more money from it?

[King_TJ]

Well, in hindsight, squeezing additional money after a film's release is kind of the whole George Lucas "hallmark". It's really his "trump card" he played back when Star Wars was first released, which made him the man who beat Hollywood at their own game.

(He was the first to realize there was a potential fortune in marketing toys based on the movie characters, so got himself rights to any/all of those profits as part of his movie contract. Hollywood, at the time, didn't think that was important so they ignored that clause while trying to screw him in the usual ways,)

I've never really agreed with his premise that movies are always "unfinished projects" you can go back and revise at will, though. IMO, you're supposed to give your best effort and consider it a one-shot opportunity. When the final product comes out in the theater, it's "finished", for better or for worse. Yes, someone else can do a "remake" later, if they so desire. But remakes are other people's interpretations of the story ... not the ORIGINAL producer deciding to revise it.

When it comes to the Star Wars saga though? Enough time has passed so you've got whole new generations of kids wanting to buy/watch it, and inevitably, some of them will buy whatever the latest edition is on store shelves, vs. going to extra effort to obtain the "original" versions. So yeah, some profits will always be there -- but it's just an annoyance to people like me.

Scene from Empire Strikes Back UPDATED

[rlp]

"Luke I am your father. Now I am standing closer. Now I am farther away. Now I am closer ..."

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[mcgrew]

"Spaceballs Two: The Search for More Money!" -- Mel Brooks, Spaceballs

Re:Oh no. Not again.

[AmiMoJo]

I actually preferred the older effects, sets and model work to the shiny CGI in the prequels. The latter films looked too clean and artificial. The used, worn, slightly badly fitting look of everything in the original trilogy made it a lot more believable to me.