Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Oh it's real all right. There are certain forces who are throwing up roadblocks, best I can piece together is that there are people with axes to grind who are mad that the abomination may be sent to the memory dump like the tried to do to the real show (not Ron Moore, or any of his crew or performers).

Don't forget this is actually Singer take 2. They were a month away from shooting last time

http://www.tombsofkobol.com/bsg/bsg-desanto-01.html

Hypothetically everything will be ironed out by the time Singer finishes the X-prequel.

click the viper, Battlestar and Raider for more set pictures.

I would have much prefered this version to what we actually got.

[Jeff Kleist]

So would I. The original happened, move the clock forward, and tweak to bring it up to a modern sensibility. Tom DeSanto fights hard for the people that kept these franchises alive, and he proved that with the X-movies. The powers that be definately haven't helped on Transformers, but I would say that what IS intact, is there in no small part to his efforts, and that includes Peter Cullen and not some random celeb voicing Prime. I know for a fact that on his Galactica, he's working hand in hand with Glen Larson to make sure that this movie reboot is a modern representation of his vision

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I know for a fact that on his Galactica, he's working hand in hand with Glen Larson to make sure that this movie reboot is a modern representation of his vision

I wonder what a modern representation of "let's beat The Empire Strikes Back's Wagon Train-in-space concept out the door" will look like.

[Rob71]

Reading the spoiler in the Epilogue actually had me .

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I wonder what a modern representation of "let's beat The Empire Strikes Back's Wagon Train-in-space concept out the door" will look like.

BSG was in development since the early 70's, the success of Star Wars is what got it made in the first place.

[al cos.]

So, which version of the Galactica pilot would be from the best film source? Apparently the movie version (that came out as it's own separate dvd) was shown theatrically before and after it aired on TV, so does that mean that's the "first generation" source? (since I would assume they used the best elements for the theater, and the negative can't be composed both ways, if that makes sense)

[Moviefan1203]

Originally Posted by micks_address

Jeff - can i ask about the rumoured re release of Gladiator? Do you think it will be released worldwide or just re released in the US? I see reference to it being released in May now to co incide with the cinema release of Robin Hood.. i sold my copy last month with i got inkling of a new release on the way and got a good price for it considering.

p.s. just asking about worldwide as it was region locked by paramount as universal released in europe and elsewhere.. .. be cool if the new disc is region free..


Cheers,
Mick

The remastered Blu-ray already has a Finnish release date, so it seems like Universal is definitely going to be tapping into the Region B market

Jeff, with Scorsese's recent comments regarding 3D filming, what do you see the future of 3D film being like? I personally see it as gimmicky and a fad, and I see it starting to fizzle out in a few years as it has in the past. But I suppose I could be wrong.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Moviefan1203

I see it starting to fizzle out in a few years as it has in the past. But I suppose I could be wrong.

I think it's already broken past the point where it might potentially fizzle. Every theater in my somewhat small town has a digital 3D screen, and what are they gonna do, put film projection back? And consider the popularity of 3d animated features and the relative ease of releasing them in 3D, just that would probably keep the format afloat.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Moviefan1203

The remastered Blu-ray already has a Finnish release date, so it seems like Universal is definitely going to be tapping into the Region B market

Jeff, with Scorsese's recent comments regarding 3D filming, what do you see the future of 3D film being like? I personally see it as gimmicky and a fad, and I see it starting to fizzle out in a few years as it has in the past. But I suppose I could be wrong.

the 3D imagery in Coraline, UP, and Avatar were anything but "gimmicky". The depth axis in those films was artful, and involving, and evocative. It also really propelled the emotion of the scenes. Avatar used 3D in some very subtle ways... expanding the depth of the scene rather than pushing gimmicky object out into the theater space for "wow" factor. In fact, much of AVATAR was so subtle that 2 of my friends who saw it with me in 3D said "only a few scenes were in 3D, most of the movie was just normal 2D" because they are so used to 3D being used as a gimmick they didn't realize that adding *depth* to a film "counted" as 3D (I explained otherwise, of course). Coraline probably wins the prize of these 3 as using 3D in the most integrated way... much of the film was really infused with the depth axis making it just as much a part of the film as color or detail or any other criteria of image presentation. Coraline was a much "lesser" experience in 2D by comparison.

[Jeff Kleist]

So, which version of the Galactica pilot would be from the best film source? Apparently the movie version (that came out as it's own separate dvd) was shown theatrically before and after it aired on TV, so does that mean that's the "first generation" source? (since I would assume they used the best elements for the theater, and the negative can't be composed both ways, if that makes sense)

Well, they're 2 different cuts. I prefer the TV cut because there's more worthwhile footage in there that's subtracted in the movie version. I'm sure there's somewhere with a breakdown of the differences (Jimmy Carter speech breaking in aside in the original broadcast). I know the DVDs were run from the negatives, and I assume any Blu release would follow a similar path as Star Trek (and we can hope, but don't go nuts with it, that Uni would pony up for some new FX to add some variety. And I'm sure the guys who worked on the FX originally would not only approve, but want in on that kind of project

I think it's already broken past the point where it might potentially fizzle. Every theater in my somewhat small town has a digital 3D screen, and what are they gonna do, put film projection back? And consider the popularity of 3d animated features and the relative ease of releasing them in 3D, just that would probably keep the format afloat.

Nah, most markets only had 1 or 2 3D screens until very recently. Real penetration hasn't happened until the last 6 months or so. If it's going to burn out it's going to take another year or so to show

The studios like 3D because it lets them charge more For filmmakers, it gives them a new way to tell their stories, incorporating different elements than they would in 2D. For the public, well, who knows. The real problem i see is the fake 3D like Alice and what they're calling clash of the Titans, where it's tacked on as a gimmick. They need to step up and make 3D from the get-go or don't bother. I think a lot of famous filmmakers will want to try their hands at it, but that eventualy they'll look at what serves the story sooner rather than later. Me personally, give me true IMAX 65mm over 3D any day, but I'll take both

Of course, I'm going to see Tron Legacy's trailer tomorrow with the added attraction of Alice in fake 3D, because I'm a tool when it comes to Tron Nothing will ever be better than that suprise trailer at SDCC though. 7000 simultaneous nerdgasms.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The studios like 3D because it lets them charge more For filmmakers, it gives them a new way to tell their stories, incorporating different elements than they would in 2D. For the public, well, who knows. The real problem i see is the fake 3D like Alice and what they're calling clash of the Titans, where it's tacked on as a gimmick. They need to step up and make 3D from the get-go or don't bother. I think a lot of famous filmmakers will want to try their hands at it, but that eventualy they'll look at what serves the story sooner rather than later. Me personally, give me true IMAX 65mm over 3D any day, but I'll take both

Of course, I'm going to see Tron Legacy's trailer tomorrow with the added attraction of Alice in fake 3D, because I'm a tool when it comes to Tron Nothing will ever be better than that suprise trailer at SDCC though. 7000 simultaneous nerdgasms.

Agreed. Native 3D or not at all. It's really disturbing to see so many titles marketed and hyped as "3D" only to be processed 2D. native 3D should be the rule, with the very rare exception a processed 2D version when dealing with legacy material and a director who really insists on a 3D exhibition.

Processed 3D looks fake, and is never convincing and natural like native.

[garyrc]

Tasteful 3D is fine, but the glasses they issued in Corvallis for Avatar - at a high price - had frames that reflected light from the screen back at one's eyes, and I had to fight the glare for the whole length of the film. Glasses should have frames that are very dull. I never had trouble with the glasses at the film festivel, at the museum in McMinvile, at Captain EO in Disneyland, for Dial M for Murder at the York in San Francisco, for Obler's films, for Lennie Lipton's marvelous 3D art films, or at Disneyland as far back as 1957, so whoever made and approved of the glasses handed out for Avatar in this town just did not have head in gear.

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, that's something to bring up with your theater. Personally I wish all the theaters would go for reuseable glasses, even though there are recycling bins, it's still a lot of wasted energy to recycle the plastic and send more glasses back in. Some kinds have sterilizeable glasses, but apparently the theaters don't like spending money to have someone spend time washing them.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

the 3D imagery in Coraline, UP, and Avatar were anything but "gimmicky". The depth axis in those films was artful, and involving, and evocative. It also really propelled the emotion of the scenes. Avatar used 3D in some very subtle ways... expanding the depth of the scene rather than pushing gimmicky object out into the theater space for "wow" factor. In fact, much of AVATAR was so subtle that 2 of my friends who saw it with me in 3D said "only a few scenes were in 3D, most of the movie was just normal 2D" because they are so used to 3D being used as a gimmick they didn't realize that adding *depth* to a film "counted" as 3D (I explained otherwise, of course). Coraline probably wins the prize of these 3 as using 3D in the most integrated way... much of the film was really infused with the depth axis making it just as much a part of the film as color or detail or any other criteria of image presentation. Coraline was a much "lesser" experience in 2D by comparison.

The only one I saw in 3D was UP. And here is a question: Does viewing UP in 2D take anything away from narrative of UP?

Plus asking young children to put up with 3D glasses for 90+minutes is stretching it. My kids made it about 3/4 of the way through it.

3D is the new CGI in Hollywood. Its a useful tool but is it something that most can use effectively?

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by garyrc

...I never had trouble with the glasses at the film festivel...

Are you referring to the 3D Expo(s) at the Egyptian some years back? I was at every show of both festival.

[SpaceDog]

I'm interested to see what happens with Alice tonight. If I understand properly, it was always intended to be 3-D, but was shot flat. I agree with James Cameron that this makes no sense, and it should have been shot with 3-D cameras to start.
I hope they've pulled off something that doesn't look like crap, because I'd hate for the anti-3D folks to have more "ammo" when good, quality 3-D enhances the film experience.
For my money, Scorsese is right. There is no reason a dramatic film can't be enhanced by 3-D. People need to understand that 3-D is just another immersion tool like color or surround sound.
How many people today would be okay with a blu-ray delivering only 2.0 audio for dramatic films? No. They want 3-D audio for all films.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by CraigW

The only one I saw in 3D was UP. And here is a question: Does viewing UP in 2D take anything away from narrative of UP?

Plus asking young children to put up with 3D glasses for 90+minutes is stretching it. My kids made it about 3/4 of the way through it.

3D is the new CGI in Hollywood. Its a useful tool but is it something that most can use effectively?

Did color help with the narrative of UP? Did surround sound help with the narrative of UP? It's not necessarily a narrative tool, it's an immersion tool.

Also, if you think your kids are too young to appreciate 3-D and keep their glasses on - take them to a 2-D presentation. It's clear with the run of all recent 3-D productions that a flat option will be available in every town.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

So would I. The original happened, move the clock forward, and tweak to bring it up to a modern sensibility. Tom DeSanto fights hard for the people that kept these franchises alive, and he proved that with the X-movies. The powers that be definately haven't helped on Transformers, but I would say that what IS intact, is there in no small part to his efforts, and that includes Peter Cullen and not some random celeb voicing Prime. I know for a fact that on his Galactica, he's working hand in hand with Glen Larson to make sure that this movie reboot is a modern representation of his vision

I do wish they could have gotten Frank Welker to voice Megatron though.

But I will add that 3D can cause a headache from time to time. I felt it was fun for Avatar, but Im not sure its an experience that I demand every time.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Does viewing UP in 2D take anything away from narrative of UP?

Yes.

Do you recall the opening sequence? Like Carl, we are sitting in the theatre with our fan-goggles on.

Do you recall the 3D gag reveal of the stone outcropping on the plateau? We can understand this moment in 2D, but in 3D, we also share the experience with the characters.

For the characters within the story, these narrative elements are the same, regardless of format. However, the audience relationship to the characters differs between them- and not just in terms of perceived distances between the audience and the image, but in story terms.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Yes.

Do you recall the opening sequence? Like Carl, we are sitting in the theatre with our fan-goggles on.

Do you recall the 3D gag reveal of the stone outcropping on the plateau? We can understand this moment in 2D, but in 3D, we also share the experience with the characters.

For the characters within the story, these narrative elements are the same, regardless of format. However, the audience relationship to the characters differs between them- and not just in terms of perceived distances between the audience and the image, but in story terms.

Sorry I have to disagree... UP is just as entertaining without 3D. Watch the Pixar story... to Pixar the STORY comes first.... you can use all the technical marvels you want when creating a film, but if the story isn't there it really doesn't matter in the end.

I just have my doubts that 3D is going to be the savior of Hollywood and the CE makers.

I am more concerned with having having high quality video and audio. 3D is still too gimmicky for my tastes.

And for them to expect me to go out and upgrade ALL my equipment for 0.00001% of potential content is just absurd. $150 for a pair of shutter glasses.... let's see my theater seats 8.... $1200 are they NUTS? Once decoded all 3D is out of BD player is 1080p48. Now HDMI is claiming its a higher bandwidth (really HDMI 1.3 can carry 1080p60 just fine... 1080p48 is clearly less BW) and they say my 2007 receiver can't understand the 3D signal (again what's so special about a 1080p48 signal). I don't see why they couldn't have developed a system that has more backwards compatibility. Really the only trick that needed to be developed was syncing glasses with displays if a display can handle 1080p48.

Is 3D a significant portion of our entertainment future? Maybe, but I won't be dropping any money on it until it is a near commodity product offering.