Jump to content

Home

Lucas: I'm doing Star Wars in 3d OMGROFL!


Astor
 Share

Recommended Posts

I bought Iron Man 2 SE Blu-Ray yesterday - $24.99 while the DVD SE was $22.99

 

Also purchased

 

Robinhood (Director's Cut) Blu-Ray - $25.99 while the DVD (Director's Cut) was $19.99.

 

In buying older movies on Blu-Ray I usually just wait for them to go on sell. I not going to replace a DVD with a Blu-Ray unless it is my favorite Movies (Star Wars) or it is a good deal.

 

I suppose the price difference is, plain and simple, smaller in the States than it is here... a pity. I really hate being given reasons to be venomously opinionated. :¬:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't see Avatar in 3D, but I did see Toy Story 3, and I was pretty impressed with the new 3D. It was weird at first because I, too, wear glasses and two sets of specs is awkward, but I got used to it in a couple of minutes and thoroughly enjoyed the film. Would've been less awkward had I worn contacts, but I hate contacts (or, rather, my eyes do), and I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if 3D clip-ons became available in the near future.

 

As to the effect of watching the new 3D, well, it's pretty easy to say that it's light-years ahead of the 1950s/1980s 3D movies that I've seen, but that's to be expected. For various reasons, some people still won't like it, though, and they should be given the option to view movies in 2D if they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it'd be pretty cool to see SW at a cinema, in 3D. you people smell of cynicism...

I think it'd be great to see Star Wars at the cinema's or at home in 3D too... I just don't think current 3D technology is very good and can't understand why people are suddenly excited about current 3D tech which has been around for many, many years... that's not cynicism... I'm just aware that companies have found a new (old) goldmine to exploit and haven't actually done anything new and wonderful... so, when a newer and BETTER form of 3D is invented... and it is actually something to behold, I'll be the first one in line to watch everything in 3D.

 

 

The reason I refer to Blu-Ray/HD as a "gimmick" is that the technology itself is hardly that much superior to DVD/SD quality on most standard screens; and I don't know about the other ~20 year old students around here, but I don't have $3000+ lying around to shell out for an HD television, nor the extra disposable income to throw away on the Blu-Ray discs themselves (I can buy the same movie on DVD for $20 or less that on Blu-Ray costs anywhere from $40 to $60). Both technologies are simply far too expensive to be commercially viable, and I expect they will be for at least another five years, if not longer.

Ever watched DVD using an RF cable on an older TV?... You'd swear you were watching VHS again ;) But then to get the most out of DVD, at the time you needed a newer TV and at least composite cables, you know, the yellow cable for video and red and white for audio. You have to remember that many people had to go through that with the switch from VHS to DVD.

 

Also... I've bought Blu-ray's for pretty cheap... well... down here in Australia :p The problem with everyone else is that they don't have JB HiFi... if you did then you'd be able to get a tonne of Blu-ray for pretty damn cheap cause they always have price cuts of all kinds and buy 1 or 2 and get another free or whatever. If it wasn't for JB HiFi then I wouldn't have over 100 Blu-rays already XD

 

I don't deny that 1080p is a significant step forward in the way we make and view movies and television. But in my opinion, the fad that is HDTV and Blu-Ray has hit about a decade too early. Lucas could make far more money if they made this move in 2015 or later, when the technology is affordable enough to be in every home. But alas, people like myself who can't afford the technology get this massive backlash of people questioning our taste, values, sanity, etc. (lookin' at you, adamqd) simple because we don't get ourselves excited over something that is, for the foreseeable future, beyond our financial reach.

A lot of people have HDTVs and are investing in Blu-ray and HD media... I mean, if not for movies, then look at all of the people who are playing HD consoles like the PS3 and Xbox 360. You can't deny that HD media has been extremely popular and is definitely NOT something that has come early.

 

And it's fine if you can't afford the new tech because you still have DVD, but the point that people are trying to make is that just because you can't afford something, it doesn't make it a gimmick... it's STILL a progression whether you're able to progress with the rest of the world or not.

 

 

I didn't see Avatar in 3D, but I did see Toy Story 3, and I was pretty impressed with the new 3D. It was weird at first because I, too, wear glasses and two sets of specs is awkward, but I got used to it in a couple of minutes and thoroughly enjoyed the film. Would've been less awkward had I worn contacts, but I hate contacts (or, rather, my eyes do), and I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if 3D clip-ons became available in the near future.

 

As to the effect of watching the new 3D, well, it's pretty easy to say that it's light-years ahead of the 1950s/1980s 3D movies that I've seen, but that's to be expected. For various reasons, some people still won't like it, though, and they should be given the option to view movies in 2D if they want.

As I've been trying to say for awhile now, this form of 3D isn't new... it's newER than the cyan and red paper glasses type 3D we've had forever, but it's still not new XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, if not for movies, then look at all of the people who are playing HD consoles like the PS3 and Xbox 360. You can't deny that HD media has been extremely popular and is definitely NOT something that has come early.

 

Well the main difference is that the difference between a blue ray, and a DVD, is a difference smaller than the one between the old and new consoles. Look at the first halo, and now Halo reach for example, the difference is something... HUGE, is like in the modding here of kotor, anyone want to get big textures to have better details etc, no one would mod with the lowest textures, because it's like seeing an ald movie from 20 years ago, and compare it with now a new brand movie in blue ray.

 

So we can't really compare video games and movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the main difference is that the difference between a blue ray, and a DVD, is a difference smaller than the one between the old and new consoles. Look at the first halo, and now Halo reach for example, the difference is something... HUGE, is like in the modding here of kotor, anyone want to get big textures to have better details etc, no one would mod with the lowest textures, because it's like seeing an ald movie from 20 years ago, and compare it with now a new brand movie in blue ray.

 

So we can't really compare video games and movies.

 

Have you seen Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2 played on an SDTV? I have because my nephew was silly enough to hook up his consoles to his crappy little standard definition CRT instead of the big 1080p HDTV they have in the living room. The difference was night and day and it was as if I was watching him play Halo 1 and 2 and past Call of Duty games on the PS2 or original Xbox... Thankfully I convinced him to unplug his consoles from his TV and plug them into the one in the living room via HDMI and it totally blew him away at the difference in quality he was seeing.

 

So YES, we CAN compare video games and movies this way since we're only talking about the end result of what is viewed on screen and not the behind the scenes mechanics of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've been trying to say for awhile now, this form of 3D isn't new... it's newER than the cyan and red paper glasses type 3D we've had forever, but it's still not new XD

 

Depends on how you define new. I do know the use of HD video cameras have made a world of difference to 3D as well as all movies. I consider that new technology, but what do I know I'm old. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no! I think you have it backwards. I'm saying that those who are all bitter about Lucas even doing this and say they don't want to go see it are dead inside.
Hey if I can go see them at the cinema or IMAX (if only) as they are then fine, but in 3D? Never.

 

It's not just because I wear glasses that it's putting me off, I just don't get what the point of it is, it doesn't make any movie more impressive at all, the technology is impressive yes, but it serves no real practical purpose other than being able to charge more for cinema tickets and new tv sets...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey if I can go see them at the cinema or IMAX (if only) as they are then fine, but in 3D? Never.

 

It's not just because I wear glasses that it's putting me off, I just don't get what the point of it is, it doesn't make any movie more impressive at all, the technology is impressive yes, but it serves no real practical purpose other than being able to charge more for cinema tickets and new tv sets...

 

QFT...I'm right there with ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no! I think you have it backwards. I'm saying that those who are all bitter about Lucas even doing this and say they don't want to go see it are dead inside.

 

Nope, i just meant that it must be something else than being dead on the inside if i am but still want to see them :xp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, i just meant that it must be something else than being dead on the inside if i am but still want to see them :xp:
Ah ok, gotcha now. :)

 

I can watch Star Wars any time I want on my beautiful HDTV. I don't need 3D to make my life complete...sorry.
Sure, neither do I. But I do enjoy the experience of watching movies I love with a large crowd that feels the same.

 

It's not just because I wear glasses that it's putting me off, I just don't get what the point of it is, it doesn't make any movie more impressive at all, the technology is impressive yes, but it serves no real practical purpose other than being able to charge more for cinema tickets and new tv sets...
I used to think that way. But seeing Avatar in 3D really pulled me into that world. Yes, some 3D is done better than others and it remains to be seen how 3D Star Wars would turn out, but the idea of seeing some of the iconic moments (trench run, hoth battle, asteroid field chase) in 3D is appealing enough to me not to dismiss everything out of hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's your opinion Prime, I still stand by mine, especially when you think that 15% of people actually can't "see" the 3D aspect of it (something to do with the eyes and how they work, can't remember exactly what it is exactly) and that's not even counting people needing glasses...

 

It's never going to work for the home either unless they can get rid of the need of goggles, it's just not cost-effective and rather silly to be sitting around your house like that.

 

Again I'm not saying it won't be impressive to watch, I just hope when it's in cinemas they'll think of those 15% and us "four-eyes" and also give us a normal version to see.

 

And you can't defend the fact that this isn't just pure money-grabbing, if Lucas really wanted to do something for the fans, he would stop making excuses for not making the Live-action series and get someone else to write and direct it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's your opinion Prime, I still stand by mine, especially when you think that 15% of people actually can't "see" the 3D aspect of it (something to do with the eyes and how they work, can't remember exactly what it is exactly) and that's not even counting people needing glasses...

 

It's never going to work for the home either unless they can get rid of the need of goggles, it's just not cost-effective and rather silly to be sitting around your house like that.

 

Again I'm not saying it won't be impressive to watch, I just hope when it's in cinemas they'll think of those 15% and us "four-eyes" and also give us a normal version to see.

 

And you can't defend the fact that this isn't just pure money-grabbing, if Lucas really wanted to do something for the fans, he would stop making excuses for not making the Live-action series and get someone else to write and direct it...

 

Of course they'll also show it in 2D. There haven't been any 3d movies within the recent trend in which it hasn't also been available in 2d. Also, I wear glasses, and I don't have a problem seeing movies in 3d with both the 3d glasses and my actual glasses on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's your opinion Prime, I still stand by mine, especially when you think that 15% of people actually can't "see" the 3D aspect of it (something to do with the eyes and how they work, can't remember exactly what it is exactly) and that's not even counting people needing glasses...

Some of it has to do with how far or near the eyes are spaced apart from each other and some of it has to do with how certain peoples brains interpret the patterns their eyes are showing them.

 

It's never going to work for the home either unless they can get rid of the need of goggles, it's just not cost-effective and rather silly to be sitting around your house like that.

Yeah, a lot of people don't realise that in a home theatre situation, sure you buy the 3DTV, but then you only generally get 2 pairs of glasses with it... so if you have a family of 5 you will need to buy another 3 which means 300 bucks more coming out of your pocket... and then even worse if you have a bunch of friends over who all want to watch the movie, what then? lol XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's your opinion Prime, I still stand by mine
I'm not at all trying to say that your opinion is wrong or that you should love 3D. I've just been responding in general to some of the expressed sentiment in this thread that the idea of having a 3D Star Wars screening is stupid. That are fans out there like me that would be open to it.

 

especially when you think that 15% of people actually can't "see" the 3D aspect of it (something to do with the eyes and how they work, can't remember exactly what it is exactly) and that's not even counting people needing glasses...
While that is unfortunate for sure, I don't believe that should mean the rest of the market should go without if the demand is there.

 

It's never going to work for the home either unless they can get rid of the need of goggles
That could be coming sooner than your think.

 

Again I'm not saying it won't be impressive to watch, I just hope when it's in cinemas they'll think of those 15% and us "four-eyes" and also give us a normal version to see.
[joke]Is that a normal version of the movies that Star Wars fans loath?[/joke] :)

 

And you can't defend the fact that this isn't just pure money-grabbing, if Lucas really wanted to do something for the fans, he would stop making excuses for not making the Live-action series and get someone else to write and direct it...
Why is it money grabbing? Lucas/LF isn't forcing anyone to go see it, and there are those of us, if done well, would be happy to pay the price of admission to see it. I want to see the live action too, but I don't think that a decision to release SW in 3D really affects that one way or the other (and it has been stated that it would be written and directed by someone else).

 

Again, not saying your opinion on 3D is wrong, just pointing out that there are fans that might be keen on the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Prime: No offense meant my friend, but calling those of us who don't bite on the 3D thing or dislike Lucas' conversion of Star Wars to it "dead inside" might have been a bit much don't ya think? Plenty of things inspire us but obviously 3D or Star Wars in 3D isn't one of them :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it money grabbing? Lucas/LF isn't forcing anyone to go see it, and there are those of us, if done well, would be happy to pay the price of admission to see it. I want to see the live action too, but I don't think that a decision to release SW in 3D really affects that one way or the other (and it has been stated that it would be written and directed by someone else).

 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Prime: No offense meant my friend, but calling those of us who don't bite on the 3D thing or dislike Lucas' conversion of Star Wars to it "dead inside" might have been a bit much don't ya think?

 

I did not take that for what Prime was saying. I took what Prime wrote more to mean --Those who are OMG George is ruining Star Wars again by make it 3D are dead inside. If you don't like 3D or don't want to pay to see Star Wars again, that is one thing, but moaning about others that like 3D being able to see their favorite movie in a format they enjoy is another.

 

Of course I could be totally misinterpreting Prime’s meaning. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Prime: No offense meant my friend, but calling those of us who don't bite on the 3D thing or dislike Lucas' conversion of Star Wars to it "dead inside" might have been a bit much don't ya think? Plenty of things inspire us but obviously 3D or Star Wars in 3D isn't one of them :)
I probably should have put some smilies after that! I was just teasing that some people weren't just enjoying the fact that SW was coming back to theatres, etc. It wasn't meant as an actual shot. Just in jest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...