Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Phantom Menace in 3D.
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Duggy
Jan 25, 2012, 7:09:20 AM1/25/12
to
OK, I get that.
But "Also in 2D"?
===
= DUG.
===
But "Also in 2D"?
===
= DUG.
===
Sandman
Jan 26, 2012, 4:59:27 AM1/26/12
to
In article
<59293033-c6d8-4a62...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> OK, I get that.
I don't.
> But "Also in 2D"?
Yeah, so basically they decided when they were making the 3D version
that they could digitally master it and remove one dimension, and also
release it in 2D. It's cool really, the image isn't as "deep" as the
3D version, but it is brighter and more crisp. As a Star Wars fan, you
should obviously see both and compare to see which version you prefer
:)
--
Sandman[.net]
<59293033-c6d8-4a62...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> OK, I get that.
I don't.
> But "Also in 2D"?
that they could digitally master it and remove one dimension, and also
release it in 2D. It's cool really, the image isn't as "deep" as the
3D version, but it is brighter and more crisp. As a Star Wars fan, you
should obviously see both and compare to see which version you prefer
:)
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
Jan 26, 2012, 6:00:55 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 7:59 pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article
> <59293033-c6d8-4a62-8b21-5f4e2c371...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
rerelease is to show it in 3D... why a new 2D release.
Don't tell me He has made other changes too?
===
= DUG.
===
> In article
> <59293033-c6d8-4a62-8b21-5f4e2c371...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > OK, I get that.
>
> I don't.
>
> > But "Also in 2D"?
>
> Yeah, so basically they decided when they were making the 3D version
> that they could digitally master it and remove one dimension, and also
> release it in 2D. It's cool really, the image isn't as "deep" as the
> 3D version, but it is brighter and more crisp. As a Star Wars fan, you
> should obviously see both and compare to see which version you prefer
> :)
I get the whole 2D/3D thing for new films... but the point of the
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > OK, I get that.
>
> I don't.
>
> > But "Also in 2D"?
>
> Yeah, so basically they decided when they were making the 3D version
> that they could digitally master it and remove one dimension, and also
> release it in 2D. It's cool really, the image isn't as "deep" as the
> 3D version, but it is brighter and more crisp. As a Star Wars fan, you
> should obviously see both and compare to see which version you prefer
> :)
rerelease is to show it in 3D... why a new 2D release.
Don't tell me He has made other changes too?
===
= DUG.
===
Your Name
Jan 26, 2012, 7:13:24 PM1/26/12
to
In article
<6c9f13c4-7d6e-4e9e...@kg1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
disc and 3D cinema releases, but if they're releasing the movie, why not
re-release it on 2D cinema screens as well?
There will be new kids who have never seen it on the big screen (2D
tickets are usually cheaper than 3D tickets) and there are people who
can't watch 3D movies (which might include me), but would like to see it
on the big screen again.
<6c9f13c4-7d6e-4e9e...@kg1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 7:59=A0pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <59293033-c6d8-4a62-8b21-5f4e2c371...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > In article
> > <59293033-c6d8-4a62-8b21-5f4e2c371...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > =A0Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, I get that.
> >
> > I don't.
> >
> > > But "Also in 2D"?
> >
> > Yeah, so basically they decided when they were making the 3D version
> > that they could digitally master it and remove one dimension, and also
> > release it in 2D. It's cool really, the image isn't as "deep" as the
> > 3D version, but it is brighter and more crisp. As a Star Wars fan, you
> > should obviously see both and compare to see which version you prefer
> > :)
>
> I get the whole 2D/3D thing for new films... but the point of the
> rerelease is to show it in 3D... why a new 2D release.
>
> Don't tell me He has made other changes too?
I did read that there have been some minor tweaks for both the Blu-ray
> > >
> > > OK, I get that.
> >
> > I don't.
> >
> > > But "Also in 2D"?
> >
> > Yeah, so basically they decided when they were making the 3D version
> > that they could digitally master it and remove one dimension, and also
> > release it in 2D. It's cool really, the image isn't as "deep" as the
> > 3D version, but it is brighter and more crisp. As a Star Wars fan, you
> > should obviously see both and compare to see which version you prefer
> > :)
>
> I get the whole 2D/3D thing for new films... but the point of the
> rerelease is to show it in 3D... why a new 2D release.
>
> Don't tell me He has made other changes too?
disc and 3D cinema releases, but if they're releasing the movie, why not
re-release it on 2D cinema screens as well?
There will be new kids who have never seen it on the big screen (2D
tickets are usually cheaper than 3D tickets) and there are people who
can't watch 3D movies (which might include me), but would like to see it
on the big screen again.
Duggy
Jan 26, 2012, 10:26:47 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 27, 10:13 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> There will be new kids who have never seen it on the big screen (2D
> tickets are usually cheaper than 3D tickets) and there are people who
> can't watch 3D movies (which might include me), but would like to see it
> on the big screen again.
That can be said of a lot of 2D films from 1999.
> There will be new kids who have never seen it on the big screen (2D
> tickets are usually cheaper than 3D tickets) and there are people who
> can't watch 3D movies (which might include me), but would like to see it
> on the big screen again.
===
= DUG.
===
Your Name
Jan 27, 2012, 12:25:22 AM1/27/12
to
In article
<0fc30edc-9abe-479b...@n7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
The same could be said of ANY movie, but the othr movies are not being
re-released in any format (there is actually a cinema near me that plays
old movies like The Goonies, Back to the Future, etc. in one session every
weekend). It costs next to nothing for LucasFilm / Fox to distribute the
2D movie alongside the 3D version, and they'll pull in more money.
<0fc30edc-9abe-479b...@n7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
re-released in any format (there is actually a cinema near me that plays
old movies like The Goonies, Back to the Future, etc. in one session every
weekend). It costs next to nothing for LucasFilm / Fox to distribute the
2D movie alongside the 3D version, and they'll pull in more money.
Duggy
Jan 27, 2012, 1:26:01 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 3:25 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> The same could be said of ANY movie, but the othr movies are not being
> re-released in any format (there is actually a cinema near me that plays
> old movies like The Goonies, Back to the Future, etc. in one session every
> weekend).
Sounds good. A local cinema used to do "cult" films every fortnight.
> The same could be said of ANY movie, but the othr movies are not being
> re-released in any format (there is actually a cinema near me that plays
> old movies like The Goonies, Back to the Future, etc. in one session every
> weekend).
I used be treasurer of the local film society and a lot of films (not
all) are available. Usually old film, often re-released quietly every
few years.
> It costs next to nothing for LucasFilm / Fox to distribute the
> 2D movie alongside the 3D version, and they'll pull in more money.
money.
===
= DUG.
===
Sandman
Jan 27, 2012, 3:59:39 AM1/27/12
to
In article
<6c9f13c4-7d6e-4e9e...@kg1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
quality image.
> but the point of the
> rerelease is to show it in 3D... why a new 2D release.
>
> Don't tell me He has made other changes too?
Han shoots first in 3D, Greedo shoots first in 2D. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
<6c9f13c4-7d6e-4e9e...@kg1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > OK, I get that.
> >
> > I don't.
> >
> > > But "Also in 2D"?
> >
> > Yeah, so basically they decided when they were making the 3D version
> > that they could digitally master it and remove one dimension, and also
> > release it in 2D. It's cool really, the image isn't as "deep" as the
> > 3D version, but it is brighter and more crisp. As a Star Wars fan, you
> > should obviously see both and compare to see which version you prefer
> > :)
>
> I get the whole 2D/3D thing for new films...
I don't, it's a flimsy gimmick that displays a movie with a lesser
> > > OK, I get that.
> >
> > I don't.
> >
> > > But "Also in 2D"?
> >
> > Yeah, so basically they decided when they were making the 3D version
> > that they could digitally master it and remove one dimension, and also
> > release it in 2D. It's cool really, the image isn't as "deep" as the
> > 3D version, but it is brighter and more crisp. As a Star Wars fan, you
> > should obviously see both and compare to see which version you prefer
> > :)
>
> I get the whole 2D/3D thing for new films...
quality image.
> but the point of the
> rerelease is to show it in 3D... why a new 2D release.
>
> Don't tell me He has made other changes too?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Jan 27, 2012, 4:00:56 AM1/27/12
to
In article
<YourName-270...@203-118-187-33.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Both the Titanic and the Lion King will be rereleased on the big
screen here when they hit 3D, and presumably with a 2D version as
well.
--
Sandman[.net]
<YourName-270...@203-118-187-33.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
screen here when they hit 3D, and presumably with a 2D version as
well.
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
Jan 27, 2012, 9:36:47 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 6:59 pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > I get the whole 2D/3D thing for new films...
> I don't, it's a flimsy gimmick that displays a movie with a lesser
> quality image.
Agreed. But "gimmick" gets people in.
> > I get the whole 2D/3D thing for new films...
> I don't, it's a flimsy gimmick that displays a movie with a lesser
> quality image.
> > but the point of the
> > rerelease is to show it in 3D... why a new 2D release.
> > Don't tell me He has made other changes too?
> Han shoots first in 3D, Greedo shoots first in 2D. :)
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Jan 27, 2012, 9:37:47 PM1/27/12
to
> <YourName-2701121825220...@203-118-187-33.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
I'd have thrown up by now" in the cinema.)
===
= DUG.
===
> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <0fc30edc-9abe-479b-94b3-599f423de...@n7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 10:13=A0am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > > There will be new kids who have never seen it on the big screen (2D
> > > > tickets are usually cheaper than 3D tickets) and there are people who
> > > > can't watch 3D movies (which might include me), but would like to see it
> > > > on the big screen again.
>
> > > That can be said of a lot of 2D films from 1999.
>
> > The same could be said of ANY movie, but the othr movies are not being
> > re-released in any format (there is actually a cinema near me that plays
> > old movies like The Goonies, Back to the Future, etc. in one session every
> > weekend). It costs next to nothing for LucasFilm / Fox to distribute the
> > 2D movie alongside the 3D version, and they'll pull in more money.
>
> Both the Titanic and the Lion King will be rereleased on the big
> screen here when they hit 3D, and presumably with a 2D version as
> well.
What about Inception? (A film I said "I'm glad this wasn't in 3D or
>
> > > On Jan 27, 10:13=A0am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > > There will be new kids who have never seen it on the big screen (2D
> > > > tickets are usually cheaper than 3D tickets) and there are people who
> > > > can't watch 3D movies (which might include me), but would like to see it
> > > > on the big screen again.
>
> > > That can be said of a lot of 2D films from 1999.
>
> > The same could be said of ANY movie, but the othr movies are not being
> > re-released in any format (there is actually a cinema near me that plays
> > old movies like The Goonies, Back to the Future, etc. in one session every
> > weekend). It costs next to nothing for LucasFilm / Fox to distribute the
> > 2D movie alongside the 3D version, and they'll pull in more money.
>
> Both the Titanic and the Lion King will be rereleased on the big
> screen here when they hit 3D, and presumably with a 2D version as
> well.
I'd have thrown up by now" in the cinema.)
===
= DUG.
===
Your Name
Jan 28, 2012, 12:12:28 AM1/28/12
to
In article
<c143f00f-ec25-4d17...@nf9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
Han appearing in The Phantom Menace at all would be an abysmally bad
change, whether he shoots first or not. ;-)
(Thankfully George Lucas ditched the idea of having Han appear in the
Prequel trilogy - at one point Han was going to be an orphan raised by
Wookiees.)
<c143f00f-ec25-4d17...@nf9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
change, whether he shoots first or not. ;-)
(Thankfully George Lucas ditched the idea of having Han appear in the
Prequel trilogy - at one point Han was going to be an orphan raised by
Wookiees.)
Duggy
Jan 28, 2012, 8:28:44 AM1/28/12
to
On Jan 28, 3:12 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> Han appearing in The Phantom Menace at all would be an abysmally bad
> change, whether he shoots first or not. ;-)
How so?
> Han appearing in The Phantom Menace at all would be an abysmally bad
> change, whether he shoots first or not. ;-)
> (Thankfully George Lucas ditched the idea of having Han appear in the
> Prequel trilogy - at one point Han was going to be an orphan raised by
> Wookiees.)
the day.
===
= DUG.
===
Sandman
Jan 31, 2012, 2:43:17 PM1/31/12
to
In article
<ac1f7a51-4849-43f7...@ov1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Inceptions, like the slow motion explosions
--
Sandman[.net]
<ac1f7a51-4849-43f7...@ov1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > Both the Titanic and the Lion King will be rereleased on the big
> > screen here when they hit 3D, and presumably with a 2D version as
> > well.
>
> What about Inception? (A film I said "I'm glad this wasn't in 3D or
> I'd have thrown up by now" in the cinema.)
I have no idea. I imagine some scenes could be quite allright in 3D in
> > Both the Titanic and the Lion King will be rereleased on the big
> > screen here when they hit 3D, and presumably with a 2D version as
> > well.
>
> What about Inception? (A film I said "I'm glad this wasn't in 3D or
> I'd have thrown up by now" in the cinema.)
Inceptions, like the slow motion explosions
--
Sandman[.net]
0 new messages