Saga Do you enjoy 3D movies/television, and will you see SW in 3D?

I personally do not enjoy 3D movies or TVs, and I probably won't go see the 3D SW movies. How feel you?

 

"Cold, sir."

Seriously, I'm not a big fan of 3D. But since it's Star Wars, I'll go see it.

 

If a 2D screening is offered alongside the 3D version as has been done with Lion King, I'd see it (in 2D).

 

Don't usually like 3D, but I'll go see it in 3D. Even just the opening crawl will be great. Seeing it in 2D would be redudant for me as I have the Blu-ray.

 

I've loved 3D since its early 80s heyday, but for me the 3D has to be in-camera: conversions like the Clash remake and Conan the B* just. look. terrible.

That said, I understand Alice in WL was a conversion, and I thought that film looked spectacular. So if it's a matter of money (Conan was decidedly low-budget, and it showed), if anyone has the resources to do a quality conversion it's Lucasfilm.

On the balance, I'll definitely see the films in 3D as they come out (though I wish the schedule were tighter, with more films per year)... but I'll be biting my lip with mild dread that the artificial 3D will look cheap.



*In the new Conan there is a close-up shot of Ron Perlman where -- I kid you not -- only his lips and beard -- and nothing else on the screen -- are rendered in 3D. The effect is that he looks more like an ape that e'er before, with this protruding orbicularis oris covered in faux fur, all in glorious 3D... it's absurdly awful. Prey LFL doesn't do this to Yoda... or Mark Hamill.

 

I still rate 3D. If enough time and care is given to it the results can be quite good. Even though I didn?t like it as a film the 3D in Avatar was flawless, IMO. Transformers 3 also boasted quite good 3D effects, particularly on the robots. The new breed of 3D is not like the 3D of old. A lot of people also fail to realise that it is still a relatively young technology, so it still has a lot of growing to do. A bit like CGI. It can only get better.

I do have a problem with all the converted stuff that was done at the last minute by the studio in order to make more money, though, like Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender. That?s wrong and its one of the main reasons why so many people are now cynical towards 3D, which is a shame. That, and the absurd price of tickets. Also, I think 3D only lends itself to a handful of genres, mainly sci-fi, fantasy and maybe some forms of horror. Why is the new Harold and Kumar film in 3D exactly? Things like that I don?t agree with.

Still, I don?t think 3D will really take off until you can watch it without glasses. James Cameron seems to think that?s only about four to six years away. We?ll see what happens then.

I will definitely go and watch the Star Wars films in 3D, though. If only to actually watch the films in the cinema again. It may be the last time they?re released in a mainstream capacity.

 

I'm not very interested in 3D but hey, it's Star Wars in theaters and I'm going to watch the movie (or movies if there will be more than one converted). However, I'd much rather see more work geared towards bringing more consistency to the PT and OT (such as replacing the '97 SE CG additions which looks dated now and also some more work on the PT movies in terms of editing and CG upgrades, but I of course recognize that's unrealistic wishful thinking).

 

Like others have said - Star Wars on a big screen? I'm there, even if I don't splash out the extra money for 3D (assuming there's a 2D version as well). I'd probably splurge for AOTC in 3D though, given Jango and Slave I.

 

This is another great reason for this re-release. How many new generations are going to have their first fill of Star Wars on the big screen? Young kids now who only know Star Wars from the Clone Wars series and the like.

 

My son (currently age 4 and 1/2) and I will definitely be going to see all six movies (assuming they do finish and release the whole series). I'm excited to see the 3D, but I'm more excited to have him get to see the movies on the big screen. And just want to point out, he knows SW from the movies already, not from TCW.

 

I would also go see them again in 2D. I just can't enjoy movies with the glasses on for 1.5+ hours.

 

3D movies that were made specifically for 3D are awesome!! However, movies that either are not made specifically for 3D or are remade in 3D tend to disappoint.

 

I'd also be concerned about how some of the darker scenes would translate into 3D. (Darker as in light levels, not content). I saw the latest POTC film in 3D and the dark scenes didn't work very well. I was rather disappointed at that, having paid about £3 extra to see the 3D version.
I don't think there will be problems in that area with TPM but there might be with the others.

 

Anytime you're wearing sunglasses in a theater, it's going to make everything dimmer. I've never understood why they don't compensate for the brightness loss somehow. Then again, very little about 3D makes sense.

 

I've seen a few 3D films in theaters (Bolt, Toy Story 3) but when given the chance I see it in 2D (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2). I don't find them offensive, and I did enjoy them, but the price is the major reason I avoid them when possible.

However, I will see SW in 3D as it offers a unique way to see the movies again. Considering I've seen the prequels multiple times in the theaters and the OT a few times each in 1997, it'll be nice to have a fresh viewing experience. Personally, digital projection would be enough. But 3D will be fun.

However, I am not for a home version. To me the films are 2D, and a 3D version will never take the place of the current blu-ray release.

 

I highly enjoy seeing 3D films in theaters and can't wait to see TPM in that medium next February. However, I think that 3D only works on the big screen. 3D television seems kind of silly to me.

 

I watched ROTS and Padawan Menace on bluray last night, and the image was so sharp it almost looked 3D! No glasses required. If a director gives a shot clarity and depth, there is no need for 3D. The sharp image and out of focus background tricks the brain into seeing depth without the need for glasses.

The space battles especially popped out at me.

I guess the gin and tonic helped a bit to...

 

I'm undecided on whether or not I'll watch The Phantom Menace in 3D, as I'm doubtful of the conversion process for 2D films. We'll see. One thing's for sure, regardless of the conversion of the rest of the film, the opening crawls will look pretty funky in 3D.

Movies which were filmed (and designed primarily to be viewed in) 3D make excellent use of the effect - films like Avatar and even Transformers 3 made great use of 3D. I avoid watching movies which have been converted into 3D, as the effect is often not utilised to its full potential.

3D televisions will really take off when affordable, glasses-free versions are manufactured.

Cinema owners are supposed to run their projectors at a brighter setting in order to compensate for this, but some either do not want to burn out the projector bulbs so soon, or simply do not care.

 

The only time I have ever enjoyed the 3D effects are at an amusement park. But I dislike 3D movies and have no intention of viewing the saga in 3D.

 

It's Star Wars. It'll be on the big screen. It'll be in 3D, & therefore, something new. Of course I'll see it.

Will it be any good? That's what I'm curious about, although I'm skeptical. It wasn't directed for 3D in the first place, so I'm expecting it to look quite forced (oh please, I'm sick of puns, leave my intentions out of this).

Not being a big fan of the 3D gimmick to begin with, I don't hold high hopes, but I'm not going to stage some sort of stuffy private boycott when there's a theatrical SW release to be had. These are the films I have cherished over my entire life (minus a mere 3 years), I have to see what's going on.
That said, I don't expect to be impressed one bit, & I can't see the 3D SW releases going past TPM.

The 3D bubble is already about to burst - again. The releases simply aren't making the money they need to. 3D cinema isn't anything particularly new, it's been around since the 1950s & it gets resurrected every 10-15 years or so & fades away because it's a naff, pointless, impractical parlour trick that distracts audiences from whatever any remotely sincere filmmaker wants to do.
The only difference this time around is the increased amount of media saturation, plus the actual 3D home cinema options being offered, but it will disappear soon enough, just as it always does. I imagine it won't be back next time, though, some sort of virtual reality experience will be around to dazzle the easily impressed & spark debates on Star Wars forums about whether or not we really need to be able to peer into Alec Guinness' nostrils.

 

I get a headache when I watch a 3D movie. I've only seen a couple because of that. If they release a 2D screening as well as 3D, I'll go. Otherwise, nope.

 

Why bother with a 2D screening? I'm no 3D fan, but the novelty value's there, & that's all they've got, as far as I'm concerned. I saw TPM 6 times at the theatres in 1999, why bother again with the same thing? Just to see an extended podrace sequence & bit more of the Coruscant arrival on the big screen?

Are they even going to do 2D releases?

 

That's just it, though. It's as far as you're concerned. I've only seen the prequels once each time in theaters and I've never seen the originals. There's also an entire generation who hasn't seen any Star Wars films in theaters. Rereleasing films in theaters used to be a regular practice, and it's one that I miss. If they opt out of a 2D release, I guess I'll just have to break out my 3D-to-2D glasses and deal with how uncomfortable they are.

 

Well, 12-14 years is hardly a 'generation', but that's definitely a fair point. You could probably extend it another 2-3 years for those who were too young for the 1997 SE's. Why force young new fans to suffer the 3D gimmick when they just want go see a SW film at the cinema?

Good call, my bad.