"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Does the statute of limitation run out on "cash grab"? I couldn't think of a more blatant example of a cash grab than this.

So Lucas, who's rich beyond his needs, and on top of that ILM pulling in millions every year, is greedy for converting Star Wars to 3D and James Cameron is not.

Never understood the fanboy hate.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm not sure what the longevity of his cash grab plans has to do with their cash-grabbiness quotient, but to answer your question, I just think Lucas is acutely aware of the product-renewal cycle he needs to keep hitting in order to fund all of his operations the way he wants to and because of the way it slots right into them, I suspect that's his prime motivator for the 3D project.

Uh, no. Lucas could quit tomorrow and have more than enough money for he and his family until well beyond the grave.

The man's a tech addict. He will and has had his films used as a test bed for new film technologies. Pioneering visual FX, sound, CGI, digital photography and now 3-D.

Red Tails is being released Barco's 11.1 Auro-3D sound
http://www.barco.com/en/pressrelease/2807

The man is obsessed with technology. Not money.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Uh, no. Lucas could quit tomorrow and have more than enough money for he and his family until well beyond the grave.

Tell it to all the interviews the guy's given about the various hoops he's felt compelled to jump through so that companies like ILM can maintain their operating budgets without needing an infusion from his personal wealth to cover their down periods (it's also the same reason he sold what would become Pixar). Of course he has plenty of money, but that doesn't mean his thinking about finance is rational from anyone else's perspective. Recall: this is the man who told us that he needed to make a $2 billion merchandising deal with Pepsico because he's "an independent filmmaker" and couldn't take the risk of releasing...


THE STAR WARS PREQUELS


... otherwise.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by fitprod

Um... I might buy that for their new films, like Tin Tin, Prometheus, etc. But any 2D to 3D conversion re-release is a pure attempt at a cash grab.

Fitprod

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I think, in the case of Titanic, it may be more of an indirect cash grab. I think Cameron is more interested in buoying the market for well-produced 3D event releases for future purposes. Meanwhile, he's very aware of the cash grab value it represents to distributors and this makes it an excellent lube with which to grease the wheels.

Star Wars, on the other hand... yeah, I'd say pretty much cash grab.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm not sure what the longevity of his cash grab plans has to do with their cash-grabbiness quotient, but to answer your question, I just think Lucas is acutely aware of the product-renewal cycle he needs to keep hitting in order to fund all of his operations the way he wants to and because of the way it slots right into them, I suspect that's his prime motivator for the 3D project.

... which is not to say that they can't be interesting.


... and that is not to say that they will be.

Originally Posted by rickah88

Does the statute of limitation run out on "cash grab"? I couldn't think of a more blatant example of a cash grab than this.

I'm not entirely sure what you guys mean when you use the term "cash grab".

On the surface it appears to be a judgement call on your part that releases or re-leases of this type are...well, for want of better words, money grabs, i.e. perhaps shallow works of art that are primarily designed to separate money from... shall we say... naive consumers that don't know any better. Of course, like all judgement calls, you're own judgements are suspect... as are mine.

Personally... I think what set you guy's teeth on edge in this instance is Cameron is deemed OKay 'cause he ain't messing with Titanic's story line this time, BUT, Lucas is always technically updating his creations which doesn't sit well with some folks.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

So Lucas, who's rich beyond his needs, and on top of that ILM pulling in millions every year, is greedy for converting Star Wars to 3D and James Cameron is not.

Never understood the fanboy hate.

When did I say Cameron was not? And for the record I don't fauly GL on bit! You don't get rich and stay rich by making poor decisions. Yes GL has pissed off a lot of diehard fans(I'm a huge fan, but I'm very happy), but he's laughing all the way to the bank....and always will. As is Mr. Cameron.
The difference between the two, is GL has more revisions to his material than JC does. Will that change over the next 2 decade for JC? Nobody know, so I guess we'll just have to stay tuned!

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Uh, no. Lucas could quit tomorrow and have more than enough money for he and his family until well beyond the grave.
The man's a tech addict. He will and has had his films used as a test bed for new film technologies. Pioneering visual FX, sound, CGI, digital photography and now 3-D.

Red Tails is being released Barco's 11.1 Auro-3D sound
http://www.barco.com/en/pressrelease/2807

The man is obsessed with technology. Not money.

This is one of the weakest arguments around. Tell that to Warrn Buffet, Jobs, Gates, etc...
The object is to make money and keep making money...not say: "You know, I think I'll cash out now, my immediate family is set for life."
Whether he's a tech addict, or not, the all encompassing dollar has been and always will be the driving force. I know that sounds horrible, and I hate to be the "bull in the china shop", but that's just the bottom line.
It's an ugly truth!

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

I'm not entirely sure what you guys mean when you use the term "cash grab".

..... i.e. perhaps shallow works of art that are primarily designed to separate money from... shall we say... naive consumers that don't know any better. Of course, like all judgement calls, you're own judgements are suspect... as are mine.

Personally... I think what set you guy's teeth on edge in this instance is Cameron is deemed OKay 'cause he ain't messing with Titanic's story line this time.

This is fantastic IMHO. All that should be done to a classical source is add the 3rd dimension. Any original work of art that fits the standard definition. Either the left eye or the right eye side of the two images should remain the original work and should-not be tampered with.
The original movie in every respect should be on one side and all technical aspects of the original-2D image contained. What should be created is a totally immersive, objective movie in-line with real-world visual experiences of the third dimension.
The latest imaginational concepts for reproduction will define how the movie will be perceived in the future. Probably discrete-3D that will allow the sources potential unhindered with full resolution and the digital media's intense light-quality and sharpness real-world patterns.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Paul H

All that should be done to a classical source is add the 3rd dimension. Any original work of art that fits the standard definition. Either the left eye or the right eye side of the two images should remain the original work and should-not be tampered with.

Personally, I don't draw any distinction between the addition of 3D to an existing 2D movie, however "respectfully" it is done and any other kind of editorial alteration. You could take the original 1977 cut of Star Wars, call it the left eye and produce a corresponding right eye image and the result, to my mind, would be just as much an altered movie as is the Special Edition.

This is why I especially don't like the idea of 3D being added to movies outside of the authorial control of their directors (such as when that director is deceased). I argue that z-plane values are absolutely editorial content so, to me, there's no difference between adding z-plane values to somebody's movie and shooting a new scene and cutting it into the third act.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

This is why I especially don't like the idea of 3D being added to movies outside of the authorial control of their directors (such as when that director is deceased). I argue that z-plane values are absolutely editorial content so, to me, there's no difference between adding z-plane values to somebody's movie and shooting a new scene and cutting it into the third act.

A good description on how 3D conversion potentially can open up a legal can of worms. Still, mimicking genius can yield promising 3D creations.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

On the surface it appears to be a judgement call on your part that releases or re-leases of this type are...well, for want of better words, money grabs, i.e. perhaps shallow works of art that are primarily designed to separate money from... shall we say... naive consumers that don't know any better. Of course, like all judgement calls, you're own judgements are suspect... as are mine.

Personally... I think what set you guy's teeth on edge in this instance is Cameron is deemed OKay 'cause he ain't messing with Titanic's story line this time, BUT, Lucas is always technically updating his creations which doesn't sit well with some folks.

Actually, you're first paragraph pretty much nails it. I don't give much credit to the average movie attendee. (Movies may be mostly crap right now, but the studios are feeding the consumers who are buying it...)

To be honest, I actually have more of a problem with Titanic's 3d re-release than Star Wars. At least Lucas has been discussing it for years, where Cameron announced his intention to convert Titanic after working on Avatar. On top of that, re-releasing it "in honor" of the 100th anniversary comes off a little crass to me.

fitprod

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by fitprod

Actually, you're first paragraph pretty much nails it. I don't give much credit to the average movie attendee. (Movies may be mostly crap right now, but the studios are feeding the consumers who are buying it...)

To be honest, I actually have more of a problem with Titanic's 3d re-release than Star Wars. At least Lucas has been discussing it for years, where Cameron announced his intention to convert Titanic after working on Avatar. On top of that, re-releasing it "in honor" of the 100th anniversary comes off a little crass to me.

fitprod

So you're okay with Lucas revising Star Wars...how many times now? I honestly don't know, so we'll say version 4.1(and counting) in 34 years. Yet Cameron is only on his first revision in 14 years, and that is most likely due to(as you stated) the 100th anniversary.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of "strking while the iron is hot". I just think, over a proportionate amount of time, that Cameron is the lesser of two evils.(two since we are only discussing, really, GL & JC).
But I digress...all of these 3D editions will sell, so there you have it!
And at the end of the day, no matter how much you sugar coat something...it all comes down to the bottom line!
I don't make the rules, just abide by them(most of the time...that you know)

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by rickah88

So you're okay with Lucas revising Star Wars...how many times now? I honestly don't know, so we'll say version 4.1(and counting) in 34 years. Yet Cameron is only on his first revision in 14 years, and that is most likely due to(as you stated) the 100th anniversary.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of "strking while the iron is hot". I just think, over a proportionate amount of time, that Cameron is the lesser of two evils.(two since we are only discussing, really, GL & JC).
But I digress...all of these 3D editions will sell, so there you have it!
And at the end of the day, no matter how much you sugar coat something...it all comes down to the bottom line!
I don't make the rules, just abide by them(most of the time...that you know)

No, I'm not Ok with the alterations that Lucas has made either. He could at least make the original trilogy films available to us. (See what Speilberg has done with ET & Close Encounters.)

Besides, he can alter the prequel trilogy all he wants, nothing is going to improve them.

fitprod

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Paul H

This is fantastic IMHO. All that should be done to a classical source is add the 3rd dimension. Any original work of art that fits the standard definition. Either the left eye or the right eye side of the two images should remain the original work and should-not be tampered with.
The original movie in every respect should be on one side and all technical aspects of the original-2D image contained. What should be created is a totally immersive, objective movie in-line with real-world visual experiences of the third dimension.
The latest imaginational concepts for reproduction will define how the movie will be perceived in the future. Probably discrete-3D that will allow the sources potential unhindered with full resolution and the digital media's intense light-quality and sharpness real-world patterns.

Well said...well said, indeed.

How financial successful next year's Star Wars 3D, Titanic 3D, Top Gun 3D, Beauty and the Beast 3D and Finding Nemo 3D may well determine what direction Hollywood takes when it comes to how they treat their treasured catalog titles for years to come.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by fitprod

No, I'm not Ok with the alterations that Lucas has made either. He could at least make the original trilogy films available to us. (See what Speilberg has done with ET & Close Encounters.)

Besides, he can alter the prequel trilogy all he wants, nothing is going to improve them.

fitprod

Wait a second, you're backpedaling off your original point about who does & doesn't get a free pass when it comes to "cash grabs".
Turning this around to a SW OT debate is pointless, and has no bearing on the original topic. For the record, I'm one of those that would like the OT's but I'm also not one to cry over spilt milk. I'm extremely happy with the BD set I've got! All the bonus features more than make up for the lack of the OT's, imo.
Discussing what GL can & can not do with HIS movies is a debate better left for the SW thread. This topic was about making older movies into 3D, and the legitimacy/reasoning of doing so. Is it being done, purely, for monetary reasons? Do we really need some of these older movies in 3D?
That was the debate.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Wait a second, you're backpedaling off your original point about who does & doesn't get a free pass when it comes to "cash grabs".

No, both Titanic and Star Wars are cash grabs, I just think it's stupid that people are calling Lucas' move more of a cash grab than Cameron's.

fitprod

[Penton-Man]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/5410341-post66.html

^ Oh well, speaking purely as a fan of this film, I was hoping for a better Blu-ray outcome…given the large format principal photography of Mutiny on the Bounty. Over the weekend, at least I found my old tattered Hokule‘a T-shirt in our walk-in cedar closet which meant a lot to me as it brought back grand memories from my youngin days visiting French Polynesia and watching those true sailors sail into the harbor, etc. …..
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post5409159

which actually proved to be the first of three trips for me to that exquisitely beautiful part of the world. While not nearly in the same league as these guys, I believe I danced a mean Tamure for a white boy and I think my girlfriend at the time was hotter .

Tamure 11 - YouTube

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Ole geezer,

I hope you understand that I'm 100% with you on the value of/need for expansion of the "frame" of content one can see in theatrical 3D. I'd love to see more adult-minded fare hit the 3D market (just as I would like to see a greater proportion of it in cinemas in 2D, as well). I'd just like to see this content appear in the form of new movies, designed to express themselves in 3D and, hopefully, having something to say with the medium.

The publicly-expressed opinions, observations and experiences (and upcoming projects) of filmmakers like Ridley Scott and Martin Scorsese give me hope that we'll see the 3D market mature enough at least to get another generation of creators thinking about the real possibilities of the format.

(bolding above by moi)
Early reports (including my personal evaluation) are very positive….
http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/...qa-los-angeles

which begs the question, who is this guy by the name of Georges Méliès?
See last paragraph here…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post5110583

[Penton-Man]

George L. does make some occasionally funny comments now and then. From a past “D” Conference, which have to be just about the most expensive conferences out there to justify attendance to… even for those on an expense account . I recall he made a short quip about hedge fund managers and one reason they invest in the film business is ‘they want the girls’.

Sometimes the respective website puts these interviews online, I’ll search to see if it available as this was several years ago from down in Carlsbad.

[Penton-Man]

^
http://allthingsd.com/20071226/best-...cas/?refcat=d5

If this is indeed the full interview, his comment should be somewhere in this video clip after the preliminary speaker(s), when he takes the stage for the Q & A…if memory serves.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by fitprod

No, both Titanic and Star Wars are cash grabs, I just think it's stupid that people are calling Lucas' move more of a cash grab than Cameron's.

fitprod

I never disputed Titanic won't(since it's not out yet) be a cash grab, but only that GL has a longer history of doing it. Add up all his SW revisions over 34 years, and stack that up next to JC's ONE recvision in 18(assuming 2012) years...unless you want to count formats then GL w/SW wins by a landslide. Either way, those are the plain numbers and can not be disputed.