The Setting of the Death Star
piss poor photoshop job courtesy Andrew Seely
If you’ve been living under a rock. There’s the new fangled thing called 3-D.
What? It’s not new? It’s old? Since like 1922? What? Liar.
No, you’re serious? Well, would someone also please inform George Lucas.
In case you didn’t know. Mr. Lucas is planning on re-releasing, wait or is it re-re-releasing? Since he already re-released the “special edition” of the original trilogy. Or is it re-re-re-releasing, since the DVDs were different than the theatrical re-releases. But then there’s the upcoming Blu-ray set. So I think he’s re-re-re-re-re-re-releasing all 6 films in 3-D. Too bad he’s not including either of the Ewok movies or the Christmas special. Nuts.
In all seriousness, I’m really conflicted about this 3-D business. In many ways it’s a way for movie makers to charge more money for entrance to films therefore making an overall bigger take at the box office. To apply this to Star Wars, when it’s already made billions and billion is somewhat of a slap in the face to many Star War fans that already are being moved to the fringe, by many of Lucas’ decisions about the films.
On one hand, yes 3-D is kinda cool. It’s a novelty in it’s purest form. In it’s current form it’s an enhancement to films (if done right). And that’s the key point. If it’s done right.
Avatar. A crappy movie, but a good looking crappy movie. Cameron did his job delivering something that looked fantastic and pushed the bounds of 3-D technology. No longer would 3-D merely be associated with things floating mid-air with the audience grasping with a stupor intent of thinking they could “touch” what ever was in front of them. Cameron was able to create depth and scope on a scale that was unheard of, or at least done well.
I have a rule: I will only see a 3-D movie if it is natively shot in 3-D. Let me explain.
There are two types of movies being released in 3-D these days. Those shot natively and those made 3-D in post (post-production). The ones shot natively are shot with a 2 camera set up that off sets the images creating a deeper depth of field that creates an image that stands out from itself. Movies made 3-D in post, take a single image and duplicate it, altering the 2nd image slightly to seemingly create a depth of field. The native process accurately creates the 2nd image angles and fields of depth which give a true representation of the 3rd dimension. The process created in post does a sub-par job, in my opinion.
Another aspect of 3-D that many people are not aware of is how the 3-D glasses effect light. When you put on the polarized (not the red and blue) glasses that are now associated with 3-D they block upwards of 40% of the light that is coming from the screen. If someone is really trying to create a true 3-D experience they will compensate for this and either add brightness to a film, or during shooting take measures to make sure that things have adequate contrast to them, so that in the viewing process images will appear the same in both the 3-D version and the non 3-D version.
An example of a non-native 3-D movie was the recent version of Alice in Wonderland directed by Tim Burton. This movie was turned into a 3-D movie long after it was shot and in many of the scenes in the 3-D version the backgrounds are too dark to see any detail of them and also much of the film looks the same in 3-D and the non 3-D version, with only certain scenes having 3-D elements. Clearly it was a decision that was more about making money instead of taking the time and energy it takes to make a good 3-D film.
The upcoming Tron: Legacy is (hopefully) going to be a good example of the use of 3-D. Knowing that the creators from the beginning were planning on shooting the movie in 3-D will have hopefully carefully planned on how to get the most out of the technology and to create the best possible image both in 3-D and in the non 3-D version. And personally I’m just plain excited for the movie. It’s TRON people.
Back to Star Wars. If anything, Lucas is one of less than 3 filmmakers I would even begin to trust to be able to pull off a 3-D movie that was not shot natively in 3-D. The visual pioneering that has come out of ILM (Industrial Light and Magic, Lucas’ visual effects company) is the one place I think will be able to pull off making a film into 3-D that was not already shot for 3-D. They have the technology and skills to do it, if anyone is going to do it. I’m sure the 6 movies are going to look great, and we’ll just have to wait and see what a 3-D Star Wars universe is going to look like.
Whether or not I’ll actually end up going to see the films in 3-D is another thing. On one hand, I’m curious. On the other, I know this is more of a money decision than a film making decision. And that fact alone makes me cautious about giving my money over to the creature that Lucas has become, when it comes to the Star Wars franchise.
I guess the question remains: does a 3-D Star Wars signal the end of an empire? Or has Lucas already lost his Rebel spirit?
Related posts: