Prediction in the L.A. Times

I don't have a problem with this as long as the original is also preserved and is still available in the highest quality.

I am not sure whether I will look at it or not, it probably depends on the film and the quality of the result.

I couldn't help but wish that had said:

 

"And as the sale of 3-D TVs and 3-D Blu-Ray players increase, vault treasures also will be made available to the home-video market..."

 

...such as Creature from the Black Lagoon, Inferno, Hondo, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum and nauseum...  in 3-D.

 

Yeah, let's see some actual 3D classics on home video in 3D first before we start thinking the studios are going to re-sell non-3D classics in converted 3D....

That article sounds like nothing more than speculation.  There's no actual indication studios PLAN to make the wholesale 3D adaptations the writer discusses;.

 

3D conversions aren't cheap, so I can't imagine studios will start knocking out tons of them.

 

I'm under the impression 3D TVs have not sold well, too.

 

And I disagree that classic dance sequences will be better in 3D...

I have no interest in seeing a 3-D movie where the creative people weren't involved. That being said, assuming the 2-D version is available, I wouldn't pass on a title because it had a 3-D version on the disc.

And if the studios think that alot of people want to see Gone With The Wind or The Red Shoes converted to 3-D, I wish them luck.

Given that the studios are reluctant to release catalogue titles on any format these days, I don't really see much happening with this.

My understanding is that they're about $10 million for a two hour movie. I'm sure that price will continue to drop as time goes on and I'm sure the studios would cut corners like crazy for a conversion that's headed straight for video but even if they could cut the price in half, has there ever been a video release where they put $5 million into a movie? Even if there has been, I find it hard to believe that they spend that much to add a dimension that few are interested in.

Like you said, this article sounds alot more like speculation than anything else so I think this another example of a 'journalist' who is just trying to fill space and meet a deadline so he dreamed up an article.

I'd rather they spend their time sprucing up and making available films that were MADE for 3D. There are plenty of those to tweak my interest.

Again, I wouldn't use this article as any indication of what the STUDIOS plan to do.  It's just some journalist's idea of what he thinks will happen, even though he displays no logical rationale other than "they need something to put out in 3D for 3D TVs".

 

Never mind that there are probably hundreds of movies that'd make more sense - and sell better - as 3D BDs than "Gone with the Wind" and "Red Shoes".  I could see big action/sci-fi movies in 3D - "Matrix" would make tons of sense - but does anyone really think the Fred Astaire catalog is begging for 3D conversion?

 

This guy just thinks dance movies would be cool in 3D and he happens to write for a big paper.  I see his comments as having no more importance or meaning to them than some anonymous blogger, honestly - he's just spouting...

My Samsung already has 3D conversion available for 2D movies. Really, it's more of a 2½ D. Barely able to tell any depth in most scenes, but the effect seems more noticeable on regular 2D bluray movies.

They're really pushing this 3D lark. I don't see it any different from colorizing, but as has been stated, 2D catalogue releases arn't exactly flooding the market, so I shouldn't think there'll be too many 3D releases. If there's money to be made you can't blame them for trying. I have the impression that Hollywood are really counting on 3D. It will be interesting to see how the 3D Titanic release makes out.

So Jaws 3D gets a second chance?

I've just seen an advert on the telly for Star Wars Ep.1 in 3D, coming soon on the big screen!

Back in 2005, RealD had a demonstration for theatre owners and technicians that was at the Chinese Theatre Annex.  They showed clips of sports shows, concerts, Polar Express, Chicken Little with Disney executives there to introduce them.  They then announced a clip of a classic film that was made in the early 1950's.  The film company gave them the scene to see what an older classic film would look like converted to RealD.  That film clip was Gene Kelly singing and dancing the title song from Singin' In The Rain.  I was completely floored at how good it looked.  The rain drops looked real and the puddle splashes leaped off the screen and into your lap.  That is one reason I have been so disappointed in the films released in 3D the last three years.  They don't take your breath away like this clip did.  Older films converted to 3D, given the right story and actors, will work. And we will see with the Star Wars and Titanic 3D releases the several weeks.

I have no desire to sit for four hours watching Vivien Leigh in 3-D. I can't imagine anyone else wanting to do this either. The only reason to tinker or remaster an older film is to improve it--as in, restore it to its former glory. I think converting old films to 3-D is worse than colorization. There's literally no point to it, and film purists are going to howl bloody murder if they try.

Okay, So Titanic and Star Wars are going to be 3-D, but Jim Cameron and George Lucas are personally working on those and want to see it done. Fair enough. But once a studio plucks a catalog title out of the vault and tries to convert it to 3-D without the original crews' consent, you will see those same directors bitching about it in the press. And those same people will convince the movie-going public at large that converting these classic films to 3-D is the same as destroying them. And there it will stop. That's how it went down with colorization, and that's how it will go down with 3-D.

The 1980's Lucas would rail against it. Not so sure about the present incarnation of The Flanneled One...

And would it kill the studios to put the likes of Creature From the Black Lagoon or House of Wax in theaters around Halloween time?

Yes, it apparently would.

I'm sure he would be. Before anyone twists the quote about film preservation that Lucas gave to Congress for the 1,000th time, I think it's obvious from that quote and his actions that he feels that the creator of the movie can do whatever he wants to the movie but that's the only person who can tinker with it.

I've only seen the trailers for TITANIC and PHANTOM MENACE in 3D, but there were marked differences in the quality of the 3D conversion between the two. TITANIC was impressive; probably the most-effective 3D conversion I've seen. PHANTOM MENACE, on the other hand, lacked almost any depth. I was shocked, considering the amount of time and money thrown at it by Lucasfilm. Personally, I think the huge amount of poor 3D conversions that have already been released without the public's awareness that they weren't originally shot in 3D has hurt 3D's reputation in general. Very few of the 3D films that have been released in theaters during the past few years have been actually shot in 3D. There are great-looking 3D movies but they are being buried by sub-standard product. Do I think there's a strong possibility that more classic films will be converted for theatrical release? Yes. Will we see something like GWTW released in 3D? No way. AVATAR had probably the best 3D I've seen but it was pushing the eye strain limit with its running time. Anything longer and especially post-converted simply wouldn't work. (Yes, I realize that GWTW was only mentioned in the article as a placeholder for classic films in general. ) I also think that the bogus markup on ticket prices for 3D will eventually kill the format. Ticket prices are already high enough that the average family can only go to see a movie in the theaters on rare occasions.

I thought the same thing but, and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the photography of the film really going to play a big part in it? Titanic has lots of shots of long corridors and the ship and The Phantom Menace doesn't really have those type of shots or objects to take advantage of in 3-D.

Exactly.

Also, I re-watched The Phantom Menace for the first time in a decade, and it's just not a good film. Making it 3D won't make it any less boring.

I want "Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Pancakes!"

It helps when the director isn't around to object.

When he comes out against conversions of old movies, I'll eat my hat. Not before.

What even remotely makes you think that he'd be in favor of letting a studio mess with another person's movie? Just because he can't stop messing with his own movies, I can't see him suddenly wanting to 'fix' the model airplane shot in Casablanca or smooth out King Kong's fur or colorizing those movies or wanting to see them converted to 3-D.

If 3-D conversion gets more people interested in classics, I guess it's not horrible. It's better than colorization.

In other words, if person A performs a certain action, it's "bad", but if person B performs precisely the SAME action, it's "good" (this includes not preserving the original). His logic is rather interesting.

I can see the logic since Person A is the artist who wants to make their movie better (whatever someone's feelings on re-edits are, no one changes a movie with the intent of making it worse) and Person B is a studio who is only out to make money. In other words, I think it's safe to say that Lucas feels that if the artist is so inclined, he should be able to make changes whenever he wants to but not a studio.

That applies to the studio that's "only out to make money" as well (Lucasfilm is HARDLY less interested in making money than the studios, BTW). However, focusing only on "intent" avoids the discussion of:

a. The artistic merits of the changes ("good intentions" do not guarantee good results).

b. The obligation of the "creator" to preserve historical documents (he can't argue that he's less obligated to do so than a studio). The Lucas who testified before Congress is clearly at odds with the Lucas of today on this point.

About 10 years before Lucas testified before Congress, he had changed and buried the theatrical cuts of THX-1138 and American Graffiti to what he wanted. Clearly, he didn't care about preserving the theatrical versions of those movies and he still spoke out in favor of film preservation.

So he's been contradicting himself for a long time. Not surprising.