1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Star Wars 3D O/T

Discussion in 'Hull City' started by Tigerned, Feb 11, 2012.

?

Should Star Wars be released in 3D in the same order they were originally made?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. I'm not a geek!

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Tigerned

    Tigerned Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    219
    Should Star Wars 3D have been released in the same order it was originally. 4 5 6 1 2 3
     
    #1
  2. N

    N Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,967
    Likes Received:
    5
    I hate 3D and I would rather forget the monstrosities that are episodes 1,2 & 3.
     
    #2
  3. RicardoHCAFC

    RicardoHCAFC Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    10,311
    Likes Received:
    454
    They should have just released the scene where they're flying through the trenches on the death star. The rest of it I'm not sure there's much that I think would be better. (Episodes 1, 2, and 3 don't count because they're crap)
     
    #3
  4. PLT

    PLT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    25,075
    Likes Received:
    13,390
    See, this is what gay people say. They're every bit as good as the older three, but people who grew up on the original 3 don't like the newer ones solely on account of them being newer. They're all class, and anyone who disagrees with that is wrong I'm afraid.

    As for 3D, what's the point, it wasn't made for 3D. 3D should IMO only be used for films that were made for it, there's no point converting normal footage to 3D. It's a very lazy way of making money. 'New' technology that achieves nothing but makes money pisses me off.
     
    #4
  5. RicardoHCAFC

    RicardoHCAFC Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    10,311
    Likes Received:
    454
    Doesn't really work that though. I didn't see the Star Wars films until I was about 15 or 16 and I've only probably watched them once since then so I've hardly been brought up on them.

    Following the same logic I'd think the older Star Trek films were better than the newer ones, where I only really think that Wrath of Khan is something special. Undiscovered Country is good as a film, but it feels like if it was reshot as 24:The Movie it would work, rather than feeling like a Star Trek film. Those two, with First Contact and the one where Data dies are the best of the franchise. The newest one I'm not sure about, I have difficulty seeing past Shaun of the Dead for Simon Pegg and Sylar for Zachary Quinto (despite his visual likeness to the young Leonard Nimoy). Same would go with James Bond as well, and other than having a fat Pierce Brosnan playing him for too long the newer ones were better (not seen beyond Casino Royale yet).

    To a point I agree. I wouldn't go and see a whole film that I'd seen before just because it had been rereleased in 3D. I don't have a problem with the idea of converting it though, it's no different to turning old films from black and white into colour like they're doing with a lot of old war footage. It's certainly better than some of the 3D films that are terrible and are just exploiting 3D being a new technology to make money with no effort going into the script, acting, or anything else to do with the film.
     
    #5
  6. Nick HCAFC

    Nick HCAFC Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,299
    Likes Received:
    1
    Can't comment on this thread really apart from the 3D aspect, I have a 3DS and I love it, seems to bring games to life, as for films, not really seen any yet.
     
    #6
  7. Cortez91

    Cortez91 Moderator
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Messages:
    9,074
    Likes Received:
    3,583
    I've seen SAW 3D, The Final Destination, Pirates of the Carribean On Stranger Tides and Underworld 3D, all in 3D (obviously) at the cinema and each of them were woeful in terms of the 3D aspect. Literally just a splash of blood here or a flying sword there, and that was it. Most of the film was watchable without the glasses on and basically 3D is just an excuse to charge like an extra three quid.

    This is just a money making ploy and I doubt makes the film any better than they already are.
     
    #7
  8. SiK

    SiK Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sadly everything about Star Wars is a cynical money making plot now (even more than they used to be). The 3D versions hit the cinema a couple of months after the Blu-Ray versions are finally released. All the loyal fans buy the latest version and in a year or 2 the Blu-Ray 3D will be released and everyone has to fork out again.

    With the cinema release they should have kept the 4,5,6,1,2,3 order as there are in jokes in 1,2,3 that only work as a result of knowing 4,5,6. When the order is reversed there is no set up and they do not work. I would bet the reason they have been released in this order is because they know that if 4 had come out first then people would have watched that and left some of the rest. This way fans and the curious will head to 1 and then go back for 4,5,6.

    I quite like the 3D stuff but it seems to work much better for nature docs and gaming than movies, but that might just be me.
     
    #8
  9. Elmos_right_peg

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    16
    3D should just be left for animation as i dont think it works well with normal type films! and as regards to the order i think it should have been brought out how it was origionaly 4,5,6,1,2,3 but i dont care as will just get the blue ray not bothered about 3D i think it will ruin them
     
    #9
  10. bum_chinned_crab

    bum_chinned_crab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    21,807
    Likes Received:
    6,317
    I rteally dont get 3-D. It doesnt make a film evenh 1% more enjoyable.
     
    #10

  11. jimbo093

    jimbo093 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll go and watch 1, 2 and 3 but not the older films because they are crap.
     
    #11
  12. Elmos_right_peg

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    16
    The old ones have ewoks chewbacca themilenium falcon and the death star the new ones have jar jar binks how can u call the old ones crap??
     
    #12
  13. ImperialTiger

    ImperialTiger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Quite agree. In fact I've pretty much given up on the cinema because everything is in 3-D. I don't want to pay an extra £2-3 for something that adds no value.

    The only film I've seen that actually "felt" 3-D was Avatar. Everything else is just ker-ching. When they (re)introduced 3-D they said that the cost would only increase until they'd made their money back on the technology (yeah, right).

    For ISTPLT saying that 1,2 and 3 are as good as 4,5 and 6? Dear, oh dear. Jar Jar Binks and Hayden Christensen are just two of the many reasons why most will tell you you are wrong.

    I wish I could find the clip from South Park that illustrates the Lucas/Spielberg motivation perfectly.

    Edit to add: They should probably release them two at a time so that everyone who has more money than sense can see them in the order that they want to (ie. 1 & 4, 2 & 5, 3 & 6)
     
    #13
  14. PLT

    PLT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    25,075
    Likes Received:
    13,390
    I know nothing at all about Star Trek, literally nothing. I just always feel the need to defend the outrageously unpopular new Star Wars films.

    The black and white thing makes more sense because the original footage took place in colour but wasn't ever recorded in colour, so adding the previously unseen colour does improve it albeit slightly. But turning a normal film into 3D that isn't meant to be 3D at all just seems very lazy to me.

    Agree with all of this.

    Hang on the newer ones are **** because there is a daft gungan thing, but the older ones are good because they have daft teddy bear things? That's as consistent as a championship ref. In reality they all have daft characters in because it's sci-fi ffs! Doesn't make any of them crap.
     
    #14
  15. RicardoHCAFC

    RicardoHCAFC Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    10,311
    Likes Received:
    454
    Were the Star Wars films made in an alternate reality where there were only 2 dimensions then? All turning them to 3D should do is add back in the perception of depth that was there when it was filmed. A lot of the black and white films had the wardrobe department and other visual elements tailored to suit black and white recording so they were just as unintended to be in colour as Star Wars in 3D, maybe even more so.

    As far as 3D in general goes, I can't watch any of them and enjoy it. I don't wear glasses and I find having to to watch something is uncomfortable, plus I don't like that they've found people who watch a lot of 3D stuff can end up suffering with migraines and poor eyesight compared to people who watch the same stuff in 2D. Nintendo have even put a warning in the documentation with the 3DS saying that you should turn the 3D option off when it's kids playing with it.

    EDIT: With Star Trek the usual convention is that odd numbered films are crap, and even numbered films are good. Wrath of Khan is 2, Undiscovered Country is 6, but I'm not keen on 4, just felt like it was being made by Greenpeace or something. I'm not sure what numbers the new ones I like were, but the one where Data dies and the newest one are consecutive films and it's only because the two actors mentioned have strong characters already in my head that I have a problem.
     
    #15
  16. Erik

    Erik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    24,647
    Likes Received:
    2,765
    I've never seen the original Star Wars.

    Sorry, but I just had to get that out there.
     
    #16
  17. John. Walkington.

    John. Walkington. Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    3,798
    Likes Received:
    14
    Decisions, Star Wars 2D or 3D.
    Only one way to decide.
    FIGHT...........

    [video=youtube;UATIsu_D_-Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UATIsu_D_-Y&feature=fvwrel[/video]
     
    #17
  18. Hank Scorpio

    Hank Scorpio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,449
    Likes Received:
    565
    Films in 3D are awful.

    I don't see the point in forking out more money to go to the pictures (whose prices are already a piss take) to sit and wait for 15 seconds of the actual film that's in 3D. It's usually a massive let down as well.

    Plus they're justing milking another cash cow by re-releasing these again. Which Star Wars lover will pay to see these at the pictures, when they'll probably have them on DVD at home.
     
    #18
  19. jimbo093

    jimbo093 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    The key word been "old". If they desided to re- do 4, 5 and 6 then they would be amazing.

    Oh yer, just got back from watching episode 1 in 3D. What a waste of money!
     
    #19
  20. Elmos_right_peg

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    16
    i meant older but oh well i still wont go see them in 3D ill stick to the blue ray that'll make me happy!
     
    #20

Share This Page