What they are right about, if they are right at all, is that in ten years 1 screen out of 30 in America will be equipped to exhibit 3D features which will constitute roughly 1 major studio release out of every 100.

If this is a revolution, then viva la revolution.

Where did you read that fact?

It's my prediction, based on an educated guesstimation of the break-even point for premium exhibition and the number of "blockbuster"-budget films released each year that would potentially qualify for the added expense of the 3D treatment. (In business as in engineering, every decision is based on cost-payoff tradeoffs, and in business decisions as in life, every poor decision is punished by immanent justice, in this case the immanent justice of plummeting profitability should the number of 3D releases exceed the market's demand for them.)

If you also have a prediction about the numbers, then in ten years we can compare notes and see who was closer. I'm sure you'll be right, though. After all, didn't sales of Anna Karenina explode when it was released as a pop-up book?

In the meantime, you can feast your stereoscopic vision on this criticism of current-generation 3D technology. At least one of the criticisms will hopefully not apply to high-refresh-frequency DLP 3D, and perhaps others will be remedied in films to yet to be released as they are better-considered.

like i said boys, we shall see, BUT in the meantime, 3D will NOT be here this year NOR the next year in massive volumes. the industry will NOT move that quickly. that's why lucas said 2007 =).

so all in all, wait+see attitude.

I think we're getting a little impassioned in here, let's cool down for a bit, okay?

Thanks,

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : A well-written, well-acted, well-filmed, and well-edited story that connects with its viewers is, in itself, already a sufficiently immersive experience.

But I suspect that it's hard for George Lucas to walk away from perhaps the $50 mil-$100 mil that Star Wars devotees, a crowd well-primed to buy into gimmicks, will likely reward him for such an effort. -->>>



That's awefully cynical, don't you think?

In the interest of some moderator-pleasing levity, this link:

LUCAS WARNS FINAL ‘STAR WARS’ MOVIE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN, ADULTS, SENIORS

Am I the only one who though the past 2 star wars looked like ass. Start to finish the movie looked like a cartoon, and its even worse on DVD in all its crisp glory

Chris, you aren't the only one. But, this is about 3D man....the original trilogy in 3D. I'd pay to see that..

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Ivanovskis : Am I the only one who though the past 2 star wars looked like ass. Start to finish the movie looked like a cartoon, and its even worse on DVD in all its crisp glory -->>>

And it's worse than the real cartoon.

http://www.starwars.com/clonewars/

VolII starts tonight!

It's funny, when I saw "Phantom" in the theaters I left feeling like I had just played a video game and not been given any controls to actually play! The same with "Attack" too, but it had a little more movie appeal in it.

The classic trilogy is different, of course..

josh, where are you! we need to come defend the prequels!

Aside from some cheesey romantic moments, I liked Clones a lot. And for me, it wasn't Jar Jar that ruined Phantom, it was mannaquin Skywalker.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : And for me, it wasn't Jar Jar that ruined Phantom, it was mannaquin Skywalker.
heath -->>>

HAHAHAHA!


I agree with Chris, the first 2 were ass. The second slightly more attractive ass than the first, but ass nonetheless.

Aaron

<<<-- Originally posted by Yi Fong Yu : josh, where are you! we need to come defend the prequels! -->>>


I turn my back for five seconds . . .



I don't know where the cartoon rub comes from other than the fact that people know that there's a lot of animation in it. It still doesn't look like a cartoon or a video game. Particularly Phantom Menace, its got a lot of sets and that crisp 35mm look. Sure it's got some vibrant colors, but it's not the only film that's ever done that. It hardly looks like a cartoon. Clones has that HD look, but it still doesn't look like a cartoon.


It's uneven storytelling wise, but there's nothing wrong with the craft of the film. Phantom Menace is a monument of design. Whatever other problems it has, it looks incredible.

Josh and Yi..

Guys, even on the DVD for "Phantom" isn't there a moment when Lucas and his posse are in a theater looking at the latest cut and they're all saying the same thing we are??? They knew it when they were making it...I think Lucas said something like "wow, that's just to much" and "well, we can't go back now" and "we've come to far with it and that's just the way it's going to have to be". That's paraphrasing, so feel free to get the quotes..

That scene where Anakin is a kid and does that race...it's the longest "movie" commercial I've ever seen. It was there to sell video games. Also, the "Attack" scene where Anakin and Obi Wan are racing around....same thing. It was a commercial for his games. I felt cheated myself because his other Star Wars films didn't have games until afterwards - the movies came first. (I know I'm a dickhead for thinking this way.) These new ones seemed like one long commercial for his junk.

Remember now, I have an objective view! I grew up on Star Wars, so the last thing in the world I want to do is slam it. I LOVE the original trilogy.

I didn't like Phantom Menace but the one cool thing I do remember fondly WAS the pod race. It was a great ride.

I didn't buy any of the games either.

Was the speeder bike chase in Return of the Jedi a game commercial too?

Exciting concepts can just happen to work for more than one medium.

What is funny is watching how movies have been influenced BY games.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joshua Starnes : That's awefully cynical, don't you think? -->>>

Actually, no. It's merely an observation. In the 28 years since the first Star Wars film was released revenues from cross-marketing of affinity products and events may have equalled or even exceeded actual box office revenues of these films. Consider Star Wars books, magazines, t-shirts, toy light sabers, Darth Vader helmets, baby juice cups, diapers, conventions, calendars, video games, etc., etc., ad nauseum. I suspect that some little colleges probably even offer courses (if not degrees) in Star Warsology.

By comparison "Western" adventure films, on whose shoulders Star Wars stands, had a 25-30 year run as a popular genre. Westerns spawned the basic cross-marketing concepts for toys and other paraphernalia, although those campaigns look meager by comparison with Star Wars' (whose licensing proceeds all travel to one man's organizations: George Lucas).

Significant technological developments and sociological shifts have kept the Star Wars marketing machine going strong for nearly thirty years. Look at this thread as ready evidence: 4 pages and still growing as the result of one small announcement. I'd bet that many, probably most, of the participants weren't even born when the first Star Wars film was released. Throughout all of these years devotees (nearly all of whom are males) have shown an insatiable appetite for immersive paraphernalia and "gimmicks". I imagine that there are families whose basements are full of grandpa's Star Wars junk, followed by the son's junk and now the grandson's junk. ("Wow, look at grandpa's old light sabre and Darth Vader helmet!")

So while you can debate the visual and story quality of the films as a recreational pastime, you can be sure that Lucas' coffers will again runneth over if he releases a "3-D" version of the movies. Then again in 10 years when he re-releases them in "3-D Smell-O-Vision".

So, no, it's not cynicism I'm expressing. It's speculation well-grounded on historical fact. More power to George Lucas. He single-handedly spawned perhaps the most powerful, family-friendly entertainment genre in history. I do not begrudge him of any of the wealth he has accumulated, and continues to accumulate, from this venture.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : <<<-- So while you can debate the visual and story quality of the films as a recreational pastime, you can be sure that Lucas' coffers will again runneth over if he releases a "3-D" version of the movies. Then again in 10 years when he re-releases them in "3-D Smell-O-Vision".

So, no, it's not cynicism I'm expressing. It's speculation well-grounded on historical fact. More power to George Lucas. He single-handedly spawned perhaps the most powerful, family-friendly entertainment genre in history. I do not begrudge him of any of the wealth he has accumulated, and continues to accumulate, from this venture. -->>>


That's not what I mean. While its certainly true that he has made and will continue to make plenty of money off of Star Wars, it seems that the observation is that he does what he does first and foremost to make money. As if he were looking for some new technological spin he could through onto to the old movies to give him a plausible reason for putting them back in the theaters. That seems cynical to me, and not really in keeping with his personality.

Considering, on the other hand, his lifelong obession with the technology of filmmaking and with the desire to create the best possible image for viewing and preserve that image as long as possible in order to create the most immersive viewing process possible - a train of thought that led to the creation of THX and their services, and eventually to his current desire off keeping things digital from acquisition through exhibition in order to keep the viewing experience as pristine and immersive as possible - that the 3D thinking is just a further extension of that, not necessarily some lame ploy for money.

While your facts are true, it seems, to me, that you're coming to an incorrect and cynical conclusion.

<<<-- Originally posted by Christopher C. Murphy : Guys, even on the DVD for "Phantom" isn't there a moment when Lucas and his posse are in a theater looking at the latest cut and they're all saying the same thing we are??? They knew it when they were making it...I think Lucas said something like "wow, that's just to much" and "well, we can't go back now" and "we've come to far with it and that's just the way it's going to have to be". That's paraphrasing, so feel free to get the quotes. -->>>

I think it's pretty obvious, based on the conversation directly after that between Lucas and Burtt, that they're talking about the tone of the film and how uneven it is, not the look of it or the quality of the picture. It is uneven movie, and somethings in it, no matter how good the idea behind them may have been, just plain don't work.

<<<-- That scene where Anakin is a kid and does that race...it's the longest "movie" commercial I've ever seen. It was there to sell video games. -->>>

By that logic the attack on the Death Star at the end of the first Star Wars must have been a commercial for toys as well. Certainly the battle against the AT-ATs in Empire must have been. And I can certainly see how, just watching the scene, if you don't like the movie, it could seem that way.

On the other hand, if you look at Lucas' history as a director and person, and consider that he has had a life long obsession with cars and racing to the point where he has included some sort of racing scene in every filme he's ever directed (even THX-1138, which is about as incongrous to car racing as any movie I could imagine) and two his short films in college were devoted entirely to car racing, I think its easy and more logical to come to the conclusion that he just loves racing scens, and car racing in general, and that scene was created as part of his particular style as a person and director, not some nefarious scheme to market toys and video games.

When the Death Star scene was shot for Star Wars - there was no such things as "video games". If I recall they started to pop up in arcades in the early 80's....the Star Wars one kicked ass if I remember right!

Who here is 30+ and remembers arcades? Lol, we used to pay to play video games and they lasted only a minute sometimes! lol

The advent of popular video games and Star Wars is almost contemporous.

Star Wars (1977), Space Invaders (1978).

'Consumer' Pong versions came much earlier (1971 Magnavox) but it wasn't the phenomenon that Space Invaders was.

Like I said, there were no such things as "video games" when the Death Star scene was shot in "Star Wars".

What's your point?

even willow and the indy films had "chase" scenes. in fact, even lucas knows this very fact himself and starts to make fun of himself, whether consicously or not, in his new episode 3 webdocs. he says that his job is only to say, "faster and more intense" and "action". =). you go Josh! =). i think you're one of the few star wars fans that changed my opinion of ep1&2.

If I can get just one person to change their mind about the prequels, then I'll consider that mission accomplished.





So . . . mission accomplished, then, I guess.


Yep. Think I'll just head on home now.

no,no,no, you need to "convert" the rest of the padawans into Jedi Knights =^).

Robert what are you on about? As an engineer and amateur filmmaker I have to add my 2 cents.

The first movies were black and white and had no sound. I'm sure when sound was first introduced there were traditionalists like you saying it would never fly. Then came colour and now 3D.

George Lucas is known for revolutionising the use of special FX in his films. I have to admit it is this which captivates me more in Star Wars then the actual story.

Having said that improved technology does not mean less emphasis on storytelling. It means an ever greater tool set available to the story teller to get his/her point across. 3D is in its infancy but I'm sure it will eventually become a mainstream technique with its own unique nuances which we will one day look back on and wonder how we ever did without them.

There will always be people who resist change. But I'm afraid if you look back at the past change is inevitable and has for the most part brought an improvement to all of our lives.

Best Regards,

Geoff

I have to agree, like it or not 3D will make it's ways into our theaters.
Of course most of us are still waiting for film to finish it's slow death that most people were claiming years ago.

3D will happen, but I think we've still got quite a while.

"George Lucas is known for revolutionising the use of special FX in his films"

I found it fitting that you said "his films" and not just 'films.'
Lucas has indeed become known for revolutionising the special FX in his own movies.....
in fact, that's all his been doing since 1977.

:)

And on the 40 year mark, he'll do it again.

What is it they say?
Art is never completed, only abandoned?
Well, you gotta hand it to George, at least he's not a quitter.

I agree, he's not abandoning he's art.

It's almost like he's the first top level "artist" in film to take advantage of the opportunity to re-invent your past works on a large scale over and over. I think it might be that time now...you create something and continually re-visit it until the day you die.

He's not playing with these films - he's actually overhauling them on all levels so they become brand new again. If you think about Stars Wars in 1977 - if it was left as is...no changes at all just a new print made, well it would be awesome. However, he's actually taking advantage of film's ability to scale up. The actual film he used is scalable..unlike digital cameras where what you shot is it. He can use his master films and bring out the highest resolution not even possible in 1977 - he can make all 6 of the Star Wars work together fairly (not perfect of course) closely.

It's just interesting to see the whole process go from a simple film release...to re-releases on VHS, to DVD, to another re-release to theaters, to another planned 3D theater re-release. Someday he's offer implanted brain chips of Stars Wars that makes you think you're in the universe 24/7! That's coming in 2015!

<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse : "George Lucas is known for revolutionising the use of special FX in his films"

I found it fitting that you said "his films" and not just 'films.'
Lucas has indeed become known for revolutionising the special FX in his own movies.....
in fact, that's all his been doing since 1977.

:)

And on the 40 year mark, he'll do it again. -->>>

Well, he has written some ten films since then, produced some 15 or 16, and a television show. Some better than others, and some having nothing to do with special effects at all. I don't know about you, but when I watch Tucker, or Radioland Murders, I don't automatically think 'effects film.'

Unless you meant that's all he's been doing since 1997. But then, he's also made three extremly large and complex films since that time as well.

I think Lucas is responsible for digital filmmaking (HD, at least) but he predicted it in 1996, before anyone picked up a DV camera to shoot a film. He also brought us Pixar and Edit Droid, which went to Avid. Jurassic Park's dinos brought us great CGI (first seen in Young Sherlock Holmes, The Abyss and T2).

Lucas may have messed things up with the two re-do's of the original trilogy (1997 and the DVDs) and Phantom, but he's definitely responsible for what I'm doing today with filmmaking. It was the Wired magazine interview with him in 1996 that he predicted digital filmmaking.

When i read that while working at a movie theatre as a projectionist and going to film school, it changed my thinking and made me realize filmmaking wasn't something for the elite few, but, for better or worse, it's for all of us. And I didn't have to be rich or know rich people to do it.

heath

Hey, I didn't know you were a projectionist? I did that for a couple months myself. You learn alot about an audience and about the last link on the filmmaker chain. It's crazy to know 100's people and millions of dollars worth of production are in your hands...splicing together 8 reels wherever you feel like it. We had arc lights, so the brightness of the film was controlled by how much you payed attention to the welding rods. I felt depressed for the filmmakers who's babies are in the hands of kids and drunken projectionist's all over the world! (this one guy was totally drunk everytime he projected, so when the bell rang to change reels he was always way off) We had a platter system in one theater and two huge old single reel projectors in the other. You had to run back and forth to deal with them both...nuts!

"Well, he has written some ten films since then, produced some 15 or 16, and a television show. Some better than others, and some having nothing to do with special effects at all. I don't know about you, but when I watch Tucker, or Radioland Murders, I don't automatically think 'effects film.'"

When you think of the latter, you think "story film"? "Character study?" Radioland Murders is nothing but effects film, having been designed principally as an in-house exercise in testing digital compositing methods.

As for Geoffrey's "What are you on about?", I'm on about cost-payoff tradeoff, both on the personal and economic levels:
- When's the last time you saw a 3D film? Did you enjoy holding your head perfectly upright? If The Aviator was in 3D, would you hold your head upright for 3 hours? Would you do it for every movie you went to go see? Does viewing movies in 3D appreciably add to your enjoyment of the film, such that you'd be willing to take on the extra burden of dealing with the shutter goggles? Every time? What percentage of young children (ostensibly the very audience that 3D would appeal to most) have the constitution to put up with them?
- Those shutter goggles are expensive. Audience members muck them up and break them and steal them and they require maintenance and repair and replacement. And 3D production and post-production is not inconsquentially more expensive. Both audience members and investors will be called upon to fork over more money, making the whole filmmaking business a riskier endeavor. How much do you pay to see a non-matinee showing? $7.50? $8? Is it worth $15 or $16 to you to see Constantine in 3D? If going to the movies cost double what it does now for every movie, would you see as many movies on a whim, without having received a favorable review from a friend or journalist or internet buzz? Each time you plunk down your ticket money, you're essentially making a wager, gambling on your satisfaction or disappointment with the artwork you're about to experience. Studios and investors make the same wager from the opposite end. 3D films up the ante on both sides of the table.

As I said in a previous post, it's good that filmmakers of the calibre that took the stage together this month are advancing the state of the art and pushing forward both their artistic visions and the technical capacities developed to realize them. Fine. But until we get rid of the shutter goggles, it's not a revolution, it's merely another round of ballyhoo, a throwback to the '50s, from which we can expect about equipollent success, both in terms of adoption uptake and profitability.

Go into a Vegas casino, and for every high-stakes table, you'll find 10 low-stakes ones.

The only thing I'm gambling on, in my arguments here, is that audiences won't accept 3D presentations in any more significant numbers now than they did in 1955.

I worked at three theatres, all 3 platter systems, so I could get the movies started and, if I didn't have to build or break down the films, I read comic books, like Iron Man.

heath

3D will eventually be like "in color" movies. They'll drop the "3D" and just call them movies. It will take years, but it will happen eventually.

Robert, 3D filmmaking exists and has for many decades and today it's more popular than ever. It's very profitable for many companies already - Imax being the one the public is most familiar with today. Why are you still ranting? You are so negative about the future of 3D filmmaking, but no one has the facts on the future.

The present day -- I saw "Mysteries of the Nile" at the "OmniTheater" in Boston last night. It wasn't in 3D, but a huge dome screen. Then tonight, I just saw Ring 2 at Loews in standard 1:85. They were both interesting to watch visually - both were films made by filmmakers today.

1-2 years ago there was a huge movie in the theaters -- Spy Kids 3D. It's just another way to make films - I'm done arguing. Spy Kids 3D made alot of parents and kids happy, so there you go.....it's 3D filmmaking today and forever just like every other filmmaking tool available.

I started this thread...can I close it now? lol

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : When you think of the latter, you think "story film"? "Character study?" Radioland Murders is nothing but effects film, having been designed principally as an in-house exercise in testing digital compositing methods. -->>>

I think of screwball 30s comedy when I see it. It was not designed princiapally as an exerciese in testing digital compositing methods. As it turned out, it wasn't a very popular movie, and that was one of positive things that came out of it for them, but that wasn't the reason that Lucas made it, any more than he created Young Indy to test digital compositing techniques. And the fact is, the digital compositing in Radioland Murders is so good, and used so seldom and in such small ways, that it's invisible - so no, when watching it you don't think effects film because most of the time you don't know that you're watching an effect until someone tells you later.

Out of respect for Christopher's closing of the thread, I'll say nothing more of my own, but I'll let George Lucas respond to Joshua's latest. (Quoting here from the Sally Kline Interviews book. All remarks are from 1994.)

"We did a shot in the TV series [The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles] for $1,500 that would have cost a studio $30,000 if they were doing the same shot for a feature film. Radioland Murders, the movie we're working on right now, is an experiment for us in that we're applying the cost-saving technology we learned on the TV series to the big screen. I don't think we can get that same shot done for $1,500, but we may be able to get it for $10,000 or $12,000. But even going to $12,000 from $30,000 is a major leap. And this is just the first step. We're inventing new technology that I feel very confident will allow us to cut that cost in half again. Within the next couple of years, we'll be able to take what was a $30,000 shot and do it on the big screen in full resolution for $6,000 or $7,000."

"...the techniques that we pioneered in the TV series that we're now using in features are going to be one of the major differences about the way movies are made. And we are obviously moving that forward considerably to develop 3-D sets and build less and less and be able to fill in more extras of people and surroundings and that sort of thing. We'll do that all digitally... Shot-wise, there are around 100 effects shots in the picture, which doesn't seem like much. But when you consider something like Jurassic Park, for which ILM did all of the dinosaur-generated shots, there were less than that. So it's a fairly high rate of special effects for a movie."

as i've mentioned before (and people keep missing), 3D will work only for interactive mediums.

the other thing i've mentioned is that the future of 3D is that you won't need glasses. the technology has been developed already for both home and cinema. i saw it once but dunno where the link is anymore, but it is available.

Last night I attended Hamlet. Which, as you know, is a 3D experience. It was interesting feeling that I'm five feet away from a guard waving a partisan that could very well lop off my head. It was a small production so I was in the second row. I could well imagine that in more expensive productions I wouldn't be able to afford a front row ticket.