GalacticaBBS: Why retrofitting movies into 3D really SUCKS. One obsolete toaster's opinion..... - GalacticaBBS

Jump to content

Subscribe to obsolete toaster's Blog        RSS Feed

Why retrofitting movies into 3D really SUCKS. One obsolete toaster's opinion.....

Icon 4 Comments
It amazes me that people will very likely pay good money again (extra $ too, for the 3D ticket) to see "The Phantom freaking Menace" (again) in the theatre.
I sincerely cannot believe Lucas is going to trod out that same lame prequel saga and make the public pay MORE to see it this time in 3D. Lucas really has the b@lls of a burglar.
I own them on dvd, and that's shame enough.... :blush:

No matter how good the 3D effect is, it will not make the prequels better movies. And in the case of the original trilogy? It might even make them worse as most 'retrofit' 3D films often are. The few I've seen often look like cheap, 3D Viewmaster slides seen through sunglasses. Overlapping flat planes, rather than genuine depth of field. I've nothing against 3D if that's the way the movie was made. "Hugo" was a recent 3D film that was very 'natural' looking, as it was actually shot in 3D. But if you're going to tinker with old movies to make them more marketable, why stop with 3D? Why not just take ALL of the old silent movies of the 1920s and dub in THX 7.1 surround soundtracks to them? Oh hell, let's colorize them too and give them all new CGI FX while you're at it. That way they'll look exactly like ALL THE OTHER S**T IN THE MULTIPLEXES TODAY, rather than the unique, sentimental time capsules to the by-gone eras in which their made. Part of the fun of movies for me is the vicarious, 'going back in time' experience, and remembering the time when I first saw them. People like Lucas just don't GET that. It's a sentimental journey as well, not just a cinematic one. Movies are the pop culture time machines. When you 'modernize' them? You also take something AWAY from them; the 'time traveling' experience of when we, the audience, first saw them (and fell in love with them).

And I don't give a damn what other people say, it IS artistic plundering. Even if the artist is the one doing the plundering of his own work. You've hung your masterpiece in the Louvre? You leave it the F**K alone....

But Lucas (and his army of accountants and kiss-a$$ yes men; yes Rick McCallum... I'm looking at YOU) know that people will pay to see this artistic abomination. Through the nose, in fact. Because (and I speak AS one) no one is as gullible as a Star Wars fan. You just slap the name on it, and you guarantee an audience (that's how I got suckered into seeing the CGI "Clone Wars" movie of 2008 in the theatre; that was one of the WORST movie experiences I've paid for in the last 5 years, so help me...).

PT Barnum was right; there really IS a sucker born every minute. Why give your public something new when you can just keep repackaging and recycling the same old stuff for the rest of your career? It's very 'green' of Lucas to just recycle the same movies over and over again rather than waste talent and resources making new ones (like his 'wasteful' colleagues Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg have done with "Hugo" and "War Horse"; SHAME on them... still pushing the boundaries of modern cinema when they could be remastering "JAWS" or tinkering with "Goodfellas" for the 30th time.... SHAME! :P ). While recycling is a good habit to have in everyday life, it's really kinda sucks when it comes to creative moviemaking.... :doh:

And yes, I'm 'recycling' my POV from other older threads, but at least you're not paying me to read it.... too bad I didn't put it in 3D for you folks! :roflmao:
So what really amazes me in all this? I'm pretty sure many people will STILL pay $14 or more to see "Phantom Menace" in a theatre again.
Jar Jar. In 3D. :blink: F**k it, Lucas should be paying us.... :doh:

Posted Image "Mesa thanking yousa for all de extra cash in my back pocket..."

And you can rest assured that if this 'creative' endeavor works? It's only a matter of time before we see all the Indiana Jones' movies similarly bastardized. So vote with your wallets, folks. If you pay to see this? You're just opening the floodgates for more of the same.... :cylonnono:

Again, this is all just one toasters' opinion.... :cylonanime01:

4 Comments On This Entry

Page 1 of 1

Zipper Icon

09 February 2012 - 02:37 PM
So did you get your tickets yet?

obsolete toaster Icon

10 February 2012 - 12:03 AM
To quote Will Smith in every other movie he's ever made, "AW HELL NAAWW!" :lol: :P

Zipper Icon

10 February 2012 - 12:49 AM
I didn't think so but had to ask. LOL

obsolete toaster Icon

16 March 2012 - 07:27 PM
And today I saw "John Carter on Mars" in 3D, which is an upconverted-from-2D film (I picked it for the showtime, not the 3D effect). And the 3D effect was not really distracting, but rather unnecessary. There were several scenes during "John Carter" where I'd close one eye (but with the glasses on) to see it in it's native 2D and honestly? It looked better in 2D. The 3D was OK, but kind of pointless.

When the new Star Trek comes out next year (also to be upconverted)? I plan to Trek on over to a 2D screening. Now, if were actually being SHOT in 3D? I'd see it in 3D without hesitation. "Avatar" and "Hugo" were up shot in native digital 3D and they were simply stunning. But upconverted to 3D? Thanks, but no thanks.... :cylonnono:
Page 1 of 1

- Battlestar Galactica, Caprica and Blood & Chrome are registered trademarks of Universal Studios. Copyright ©2006 - 2016. All Rights Reserved -
- and its subsidiary sites are in no way affiliated with Universal Studios or The SyFy Channel -
- The SyFy Channel & are owned and operated by Comcast/NBC/Universal Television.-
Website and forum designed by Thomas Moore. Site and content created and owned by Thomas Moore and Zipper.