Please no.  Please, please no.

Meh.

I'll admit, I'm not a huge Star Wars fan,  I enjoy the originals but 3D just really doesn't do anything for me. I am one of those people who get headaches because have a lazy eye...it's a whole big thing. Not my eye, that's eye sized, I mean the eye situation but even without that, I'm just not into 3D.

I'm 33, I have lived this long enjoying films without that extra dimension, it just doesn't thrill me.

I just...I don't have any bile left.

Dorkman: I've not seen any of the films you mention, and I know that films being converted is not particularly great done, but this is still Star Wars. Yes, I'm adding to the archetype you just described, and I'm okay with that.

This IS, however, for me, and lots of others, about the pod race and trench run. If they do it right, it will look awesome, and will be a great experience. I won't rain on Lucas' parade until I've seen them first hand.

The prequel trilogy still works for me, sans AotC, which never worked for me. I was a kid at the time, thus I liked them. And like you, Sparrow, I'm a kid at heart for Star Wars.

To be fair, those conversions were rushed, and you know that LucasFilm isn't going to rush the conversion of the Star Wars films. Even James Cameron is a fan of the in-depth, lengthy conversion processes they're using on his older films like Titanic. It's why Star Wars isn't in 3D *this* year, which is what would happen if they gave it to the company you did the aforementioned movies at.

Except that PIRANHA was done over nearly a year; Cameron shit on the same process in PIRANHA that he's praising for TITANIC.

And no, I don't exactly know that LucasFilm isn't going to rush the conversions. As we've established, they could release the worst 3D conversion in history and it would still sell tickets like gangbusters. You think they don't know that?

The only reason they probably won't is that a rush job costs more. I won't be at all surprised if the QC has a very low bar, even with John Knoll supervising.

That's weird, I disabled the questions.

Why, the questions filter burned down twenty years ago.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/08/18/camer … -3d-dante/

Going to IMDB for serious film facts is like going to Stephen Colbert's Wikipedia page for information about bears.

Was Piranha's 3D conversion better or worse than Avatar: The Last Airbender's? The producer of Clash of the Titans even admitted that they rushed the conversion.

These are things that matter: time and money. LFL has both on their side. That's why I'm confident that the conversion will be done well.

(And—by the way—Cameron wasn't attacking the quality of Piranha's conversion (he hadn't seen it), he was complaining about the concept of the gimmicky, 50's-style horror film that he feels cheapens 3D for serious films.)

Last edited by Gregory Harbin (2010-09-29 23:02:47)

Let me explain to you how logical validity works in terms of forming an argument.

When debating someone, to attack the person in lieu of attacking the argument is called an ad hominem fallacy. Now, this is not the same as insulting/attacking them while responding to their argument, but doing so instead of presenting a cogent response to them.

The fact that Jim Cameron was fired from his work on PIRANHA 2 has no bearing on the value of the statements he made. The producer was committing an ad hominem by attacking Cameron instead of his positions.

By the same token, the fact that the producer was incorrect regarding who was the original director of PIRANHA 2 has no bearing on the quality of the 3D conversion performed for PIRANHA 3D, nor whether it utilizes the same or similar technology/duration as the 3D conversion currently being performed on TITANIC.

Attacking the producer ("LOL he got an obscure 80s B-movie fact wrong wat a retard"), rather than responding to the substance of the point ("James Cameron maligns a process on one film while he praises it on another"), is an invalid logical construction, and not at all to the point of the conversation. The comparative quality of the films in question is also not relevant to the issue of whether or not the technology and time employed in the conversion are the same/similar.

It's partially my mistake for responding to your statement as though it had any relevance to the subject under discussion. If you would like to engage in the actual conversation at hand in a logically coherent fashion, please let me know.

LOL YOU THINK IT'S NAMED THE SAME AS THE SERIES IT'S JUST CALLED THE LAST AIRBENDER CHRIST WHAT A RETARD

(See how that doesn't really answer your question?)

I refused to see AIRBENDER in theatres, but by all available accounts, better. AIRBENDER's reviews universally maligned the 3D conversion; PIRANHA's reviews were neutral to mildly positive.

I don't really see how he could deny it, since they publicly announced their decision to convert it only 6 weeks prior to the worldwide release.

And that worked out so well for the prequel trilogy, not to mention INDY 4.

Well then I suppose you CAN expect to like the SW3D conversions, regardless of any of these other factors. But if you don't care about a movie's quality, I don't know why you bother defending the notion that it will BE of quality.

I have no idea why it matters -- you brought him up.

Incorrect. I disagreed with your appeal to authority, which was, and I quote:

"Even James Cameron is a fan of the in-depth, lengthy conversion processes they're using on his older films like Titanic."

Emphasis mine. To which I pointed out that his position on in-depth, lengthy conversion processes is in fact fluid and inconsistent. When I should have just pointed out that you were committing an appeal to authority and evading the larger point, which is twofold:

1) One should not necessarily assume that a 3D conversion will be "awesome and you fucking know it" if one has not actually seen the results of the 3D conversion process, which was why I was asking Vidina, who was making that assumption, whether or not he had seen any post-converted 3D films; and
2) One should not necessarily assume that just because LFL can do a quality conversion means they will, as they have shown little concern for anything but squeezing every last dollar out of the franchise.

My prediction is that they will spend the minimum necessary to produce a passable conversion; I base this prediction on the QC of various re-releases of the STAR WARS films (remember what the last DVD release did to the lightsabers?) and the general attitude Lucas has towards the films. He has no affection for these films. If he didn't think these would make money, he wouldn't do them. And the more money he spends, the less money he'll make.

Anyone who thinks they'll actually break the bank to make sure every greeblie on the surface of the Death Star is accurately dimensionalized is living in a fucking delusion. The only question is where in the range between "perfect" and "disgraceful" these will fall. If we're lucky, I'm betting right in the middle.