The Phantom Menace - 3D

I took the kids, who were eager to see it.    I sat in a theater full of dads and little kids.   The little kids all seemed to enjoy it.  All I could think was how bad it really was; there are some good moments, but wow a lot of bad ones.   Which is sad considering that the series ended with a movie I liked quite a bit actually (ROTS). 

 

But having just re-read Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire trilogy again, I'm always a bit sick at heart of how good a trilogy could have been versus what we got.  *shrug*

I had read that they wanted a more subtle 3-D effect for The Phantom Meance and they sure got it. A few shots on Coruscant, Amidala's castle and the podrace look good in 3-D since the shots have some depth to them. Like most of the SW movies, those shots are few and far between though. Overall, I had a great time seeing the movie in a theater with an audience again but I would have been just as satisified seeing it in 2-D and I'd have saved $3 too.

For anyone who thinks that they should have started with the OT in 3-D, if this movie didn't really do much with 3-D then there's no hope for something like Star Wars or The Empire Strikes Back where they were limited to relatively small sets and almost no shots with any depth to them.

Except for the credits (where they add the people who worked on the 3-D conversion and a 2012 copyright), the movie is the same in 3-D as it was on Blu-ray.

Obviously, I don't see a need to convert them to 3-D but after TPM's box office take this weekend, I know Attack Of The Clones will be out next year and I definitely look forward to it.

I noticed though during the trailers for TPM 3D and Titanic 3D, Titanic's 3D was much more noticeable even the shots from the dinner scenes.

Perhaps the subtle 3D was an aesthetic choice or perhaps George didn't want to spend a ton of money on 3D before knowing it would be profitable as a re-release.

Since it takes place on a ship, almost all of the sets that Titanic is shot on have something that creates depth (long corridors and hallways, the exterior shots of the ship, even lots of people or items in the fore- mid- or background of a shot, etc). There's not much in the original footage of The Phantom Menace that creates depth so they could spend all the money in the world and it isn't going to make it more suitable to 3-D.

I didn't think the 3-D was good at all and recommended to my friends not to see it unless they have a need to see it on the big screen again.

I'm glad to know this. I saw a preview in 3D and was not impressed.

The "Kids" trailer has to be seen to be believed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2_J2j-Dpxg&feature=related

And the parody...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDH60Spj-l8&feature=related

Well, there was the new LucasFilm Logo.

But what seems to be the consensus, some of the 3-D was good in certain parts, but there were many shots that seemed like no 3-D effect was applied at all. I guess overall, I don't regret checking it out though. And I guess, the quality of the movies only get better from here.

I can't watch these prequel films again under

any circumstances....

 

....however, I was curious to see how well the

3D conversion was.  Sorry to hear, that as well,

was a disappointment.

 

Thanks for the comments.

I saw episode 1 in 3d. it was certainly better 3d then harry potter, clash of the titans, and conan the barbarian remake. I know somewhat how its suppsoe to work. it was more in the background and stuff that you could see. like for instance how big the underwater city was. I would certainly recommend it.

Jacob

Ronbo,

 

For me, it wasn't that good, but others will disagree with me so it depends on what your expectations are and your subjective opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crawdaddy

 

I actually thought the 3D was really good for a movie that was not shot in 3D. My expectations were low, so I was pleasantly surprised.

I don't consider myself a big fan of 3D, but I would be interested in seeing the rest of the movies (maybe not AotC) in 3D.

They haven't set a specific date (beyond saying that they plan to do one a year) but I'd guess it'll be February every year. I think February works pretty well because the Oscar movies have been out & slowed down and it's before the competition from summer movies.

when episode 1 first came out. there was so much to see in the visual world of star wars. this is same case with the 3d version. I certainly notice more stuff in the background then before. for those it might be interesting to revisit star wars. I would certainly recommend it on that level.

Jacob

I don't like Episode I, but still went to see it this past weekend just to check out the 3D. I hadn't seen a non-3D movie converted to 3D, so I was anxious to see how well the process worked. For me, it was very hit and miss. In some scenes, the effect was fantastic, but in other scenes, there appeared to be no 3D affect at all. Then there were the many scenes that fell somewhere in between.

Will I see the others in 3D. Probably. But I'm certainly not chomping at the bit.

We went on a Sunday around noon, and I was surprised that the theater was 3/4 full. I kind of expected the theater to be mostly empty. There were definately a lot of 10 and unders with their parents.

I took my kids to see it last Saturday. The Phantom Menace is the kind of movie that I swear gets worse with every viewing. It was the first time the girls saw it, they've seen the Original Trilogy and we watch the Clone Wars, but I've avoided showing them the PT. Quite frankly, the PT is too violent for them. Not so much Phantom Menace, but definitely AOTC and ROTS. The Clone Wars can be violent too, but the story is just so good at times that I'm able to work with it. (I always watch it w/them.) I thought the 3D was awful. The picture had a steady haze and the volume mix was poor considering I was in a "premier" RPX showing at our Regal Cinema. The kids still enjoyed it, so it was worth the afternoon out. Even better was having my dad with us, since he took me to all 6 in the theaters. I wrote up a quick post on it for my blog too --
http://peanutsandcrackerjack.webs.com/apps/blog/show/12315737-the-circle-is-now-complete

Doug

It's really nice to see stories about people enjoying Star Wars on a multi-generational level. I remember seeing The Empire Strikes Back (probably on a re-release) and Return Of The Jedi with my parents in the theater and they got me the toys when I was young so it's cool to know that kids are having the same fun that I had.
I haven't read everything but I've read way more than enough to say that you're right.

Can't argue with you on that one. The sad thing is that even disregarding the somewhat bland characters and really just horrible story problems (and granted the very entertaining yet, very incisive Plinkett reviews opened my eyes to many of the problems that I didn't really consider before. But it makes me realize that there is hardly anything that anyone does in the story that makes any logical sense), it's really just 90% flat out boring. Many of the effects were cool for the time, but now that pretty much any geek with a McIntosh could reproduce this kind of thing it requires the movie to excel based on story and acting of which TPM fails miserably. I can't even understand why kids seem to like it so much seeing as how a good portion of the movie is watching C-SPAN.

I think George Costanza said it best in this case "Without story, It's just masturbation"

I wouldn't necessarily say disappointing, but like others have said, pretty good in some parts, but not much to speak of in other parts. But at least it makes a bland film a little more interesting to sit through again. I thought that when something exploded and debris flew around in 3-D was decent. Thought the 3-D worked well in the Courisant shots for the most part.

Granted, I don't know much about 3-D conversion and I'm not a film expert, but even with sets that were small, the were "real" right? Not Green Screen. Doesn't that by default make them 3-D in a physical sense while Green Screen is just the opposite? (seriously, I'm asking). Assuming, the OT makes it a 3-D release, I can't imagine the Battle of Yavin, in ANH, the Asteroid chase in TESB and the Battle of Endor in ROTJ alone not being worth the price of admission.
Edited by WillG - 2/15/12 at 9:11pm

I know The Phantom Menace always gets nailed on its acting and for certain actors, it's a very fair criticism. However, I think the good actors (Neeson, McGregor, Portman, McDiarmid, August) are good but the rest of the actors are either not that good, flat out bad or not really given anything to do. That being said, the main performances in the prequels are still overall better than the ones in the original trilogy. In the prequels, McGregor is excellent throughout, Portman is very good in all three, McDiarmid plays his scenes right and while Christensen is bad in Attack Of The Clones, he's much better in Revenge Of The Sith. In the originals, Harrison Ford is only actor who is good in all three movies, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill range from adequate to bad in Star Wars, Carrie Fisher is terrible in Return Of The Jedi and everyone is good in The Empire Strikes Back.



I'm certainly no expert either but I don't think it really matters whether the sets exist in the real world or on a computer (and there's more practical sets in the prequels than you probably realize) but the smaller sets used in the original trilogy means that the shots can't have the same amount of depth that there is in the larger sets or CG-augmented sets used in the prequels. I'm sure you're right that things like the trench run (not the entire space battle because most of the shots have one or two ships) in Star Wars, the asteroid chase in The Empire Strikes Back and the space battle in Return Of The Jedi will be 3-D highlights but the 3-D in the rest of the movies will pale in comparison to the 3-D in The Phantom Menace (and the 3-D in TPM wasn't that great to begin with).

Maybe I expressed that wrong. You're right, there's nothing necessarily wrong with the performance of the the Principal actors (if you're not counting Jake Lloyd) It's more that the characters are just rather dull most of the time.

I stick by my argument that prequels are almost always a bad idea; people want to see the story move forward.   And there was a fully fleshed out trilogy with a great writer attached for sequels, but I don't think Lucas could go along with that .. too bad.

I feel bad for Jake Lloyd because he's not a good enough actor to carry the deliberately cornball dialogue that was written. The other actors are good enough to make it work better and not come off as silly as it does in lesser hands.

I think Qui-Gon is a pretty interesting character but I think it's fair to say that, looking solely at The Phantom Menace, the rest of the characters aren't that interesting. However, I already knew Obi-Wan and Yoda from the previous movies and I knew that Amidala would be Luke and Leia's mother, that Palpatine would be the Emperor, that the Jedi were Jedi so I was already interested in them. That gave Lucas a leg up that he never would have without the previous movies. I'm not saying that it's right way to write a script but that's why the characters still work well enough for me in the movie.


I guess it's a matter of personal preference but I'd much rather have seen prequels than sequels. The original trilogy was all I really need to of Luke Skywalker and friends on a movie theater screen so, despite the problems inherent in prequels, I'd rather see them fill in the blanks or leap to another time period in the same universe over The Further Adventures Of Luke Skywalker. Zahn's books are really good but if they're going to make a new Star Wars movie, I want to see something new and not an adaptation of a book.

I agree 100%. Darth Vader, may be the most iconic bad guy in cinematic history. The character was dark, mysterious, and menacing. The prequels managed to make him uninteresting, not mysterious, and quite pathetic. Now every time I watch the original trilogy, Vader no longer has the coolness factor he once had for me. Thanks to the prequels!

I was curious about Episode 1 in 3-D. I almost went to see it, then decided $14 is quite a bit for a movie I don't especially like.

^ x3

So now I can see the horrid writing-acting-directing shooting off the screen at me in 3 dimensions? Sounds grea.....nah...still sounds sucky.


How the hell this man made THX-1138 I'll never understand.

There are theories about that...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BMgegut3UM

I've been suspicious ever since George lost the beard temporarily around the time Captain Eo came out.

Have to disagree there. As much as I love Ford's work, he was not good in ROTJ. To be fair, his part was not well written, but he showed none of the spark or wit that he did in the first two movies. That carbonite really did him in.