Star Wars in 3D starting 2012 (Update: AOTC and ROTS cancelled)

[Delorean90 42]

Restore and re-release the originals!!

[KK 3,307]

So no more 3D John Williams music! A pity.

Maybe they`ll bring on the 48fps!

[Giftheck 916]

Quite sad about this, even if all they did was reissue the OSTs with bonus tracks.

WHAT? You wanted more ugly covers?

Ugly covers, no. Possibly previously unreleased bonus tracks, yes (and with no 'dialogue versions' to use they would have to if they wanted to add bonus tracks). I think it was clear they wouldn't have given us complete releases though.

[Jay 37,364]

I find this news surprising

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Maybe they shouldn't have released The Phantom Menace first. You think? I know Lucas wants them to be seen in this order, but Jesus. Most people would rather go see the old ones.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Not surprising. Did really anyone think a great number of people would want to see movies in 3D (which is more expensive) that have been established as failures for a decade?

[Smeltington 1,440]

This is sad. I really enjoyed seeing Phantom Menace last year. I don't care how many dimensions they want to put them in, but I like any opportunity to see these on the big screen.

Sooner or later, I wonder if Disney will plan a big rerelease campaign around the original versions of the trilogy. I could see them doing that as a theatrical release with Blu-ray shortly after. Sort of an inverse of the whole SE debacle

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Well, I don't think Disney can do that. 20th Century Fox didn't just lose Star Wars.

[Delorean90 42]

God, if only. It may not be so unlikely since Abrams is talking about pushing the release back from 2015. That would allow more time for restoration. I don't know that it's very likely, but it'd be a damned wonderful way to build up to Episode VII.

[Smeltington 1,440]

Lucasfilm (George) were presumably the ones keeping the originals from release, so something might be arranged, though how long it will take is another matter. But Disney tends to know which side their bread is buttered on when it comes to milking their catalogue. They're into big reissue campaigns of their own films, so their involvement at least moves such a thing closer to the realm of possibility.

[Matt C 454]

Well, I don't think Disney can do that. 20th Century Fox didn't just lose Star Wars.

Disney gets the rights to the PT and last two OT films in May 2020. Fox will still have perpetual rights to the original Star Wars though.

I'm glad for this news. Like you said, people would rather see the old trilogy in 3D instead.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

shame....if they do the other 5 films some day... TPM 3d effects will be years worse than the new films... :/

I wanted to see ROTJ in the cinema...

And the ROTS opening battle

[Brónach 1,302]

I'm ok with films beng rereleased without converting them to 3D.

[Smeltington 1,440]

Yeah, for those of us who weren't around for the original theatrical release, any theatrical release is better than nothing.

[MrJosh 892]

Aw man!! I was really looking forward to Anakin surfing on the Naboo cow in glorious, eye-popping 3D!!!!!!!

[Score_Fan 36]

Actually, they've just delayed it until further notice, as they are working hard on Episode 7.

[Smeltington 1,440]

Excellent!

[Ollie 1,059]

I'm not surprised at this news at all, TPM bombed with it's 3D release.

It appears the first signs of common sense has surfaced in regards to Lucasfilm.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I still can't believe they only filmed AOTC in 1080p. It's gonna be like going to see your blu ray blown up onto a huge screen!

That was state of the art back then, but I never saw anything really wrong with it, picture quality-wise when I saw it projected in 2002. It's funny to think any common consumer grade $3000 DSLR camera can now pretty much do the same thing at the same resolution.

But AOTC and ROTS were also matted from 16:9 to 2.35:1, so you're getting even less vertical resolution than 1080p.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDW-F900

[Jay 37,364]

But AOTC and ROTS were also matted from 16:9 to 2.35:1, so you're getting even less vertical resolution than 1080p.

OMG you're right I didn't even think of that!

[Trent B 337]

I'm not surprised at all. I had a feeling Phantom Menace 3D would tank at the box office.

[crumbs 14,316]

I can't see any universe where the conversion would look good enough for either AOTC or ROTS. Titanic and Jurassic Park both required 4K resolution versions to be converted properly, which is four times the resolution the prequels now permanently exist at (thanks George for that foresight!). This was by the conversion house Stereo D, who also took on the rest of the SW films after TPM's cheap conversion bombed.

The SE versions of the OT also only exist at 1080p, but they could one day go back to the original negatives and do new 4K restorations, sans all the SE changes (assuming Lucas didn't destroy the original prints when making the SE, as was rumoured).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So my iPhone vids have a higher resolution then AOTC?

Geez?

So my iPhone vids have a higher resolution then AOTC?

Geez?

[Nick1Ø66 4,716]

The BD's of the OT were made from the same 2K scan that was done for the 2004 DVD release, which obviously is not up to the 4K or 8K scans used in contemporary releases. "Good enough" George strikes again. Of course, the main problem with the 2004 master isn't that it's in 2K, its in the awful color timing (not to mention the various SE "improvements", but that's another matter).

1080p is certainly the highest res version currently available on home video.

[crumbs 14,316]

Which is sad, because if you compare the 2003 2K Indy masters (used for HDTV telecasts and the DVDs) to the 2008 2K masters (used for the Bluray), the difference five years in film scanning technology made is staggering. The same company restored Indy and SW back in 2003.

So the improvement in quality we're missing out on is a shame. And if any films deserve a proper 4K restoration, it's the Star Wars OT! Even Spielberg demanded it for Indy's Bluray release because when Lucas wanted to slap the old 2003 masters on it, Spielberg stood up and prevented Paramount from releasing anything except brand new modern restorations.

[Nick1Ø66 4,716]

Which is sad, because if you compare the 2003 2K Indy masters (used for HDTV telecasts and the DVDs) to the 2008 2K masters (used for the Bluray), the difference five years in film scanning technology made is staggering. The same company restored Indy and SW back in 2003.

So the improvement in quality we're missing out on is a shame. And if any films deserve a proper 4K restoration, it's the Star Wars OT! Even Spielberg demanded it for Indy's Bluray release because when Lucas wanted to slap the old 2003 masters on it, Spielberg stood up and prevented Paramount from releasing anything except brand new modern restorations.

Yeah...and thank God Spielberg, in keeping with his current (wise) policy of leaving his films untouched, stood up to Lucas (presumably) and released the original, unaltered version of Raiders on BD...unlike the DVD.

And it's another Lucafilm lie that the OT films are "permanently" only in 2K...this notion that the "original negatives" were irretrievably altered during the creation of the new version was PR spin to try to shut people up who don't understand the process from complaining about releasing the originals.

[Quintus 5,399]

The Phantom Menace was rereleased?

[Jay 37,364]

Which is sad, because if you compare the 2003 2K Indy masters (used for HDTV telecasts and the DVDs) to the 2008 2K masters (used for the Bluray), the difference five years in film scanning technology made is staggering. The same company restored Indy and SW back in 2003.

They restored the Indy tril in 2K in 2008 then didn't release the blu rays until 2012? Are you sure they sat on their restorations for 4 years?

[Nick1Ø66 4,716]

Which is sad, because if you compare the 2003 2K Indy masters (used for HDTV telecasts and the DVDs) to the 2008 2K masters (used for the Bluray), the difference five years in film scanning technology made is staggering. The same company restored Indy and SW back in 2003.

They restored the Indy tril in 2K in 2008 then didn't release the blu rays until 2012? Are you sure they sat on their restorations for 4 years?

I think his post is a little confusing. The Indy BD's are 4K transfers.

[Jay 37,364]

I'm sure they were also done in 2011 or 2012 and not 2008

[crumbs 14,316]

I'm not sure if the 2008/2009 remasters were 2K or 4K, but they were definitely done back around the time Indy 4 was released (when they were prepping a trilogy box set).

All three original films were remastered in 2008/2009, but Spielberg had only Raiders remastered last year in 4K because of the IMAX release. The Blurays for Doom/Crusade are identical to the HDTV masters that popped up back when Indy 4 was released, so those films didn't receive new masters for the BD, only Raiders.

[Jay 37,364]

Aha!

[Nick1Ø66 4,716]

I'm not sure if the 2008/2009 remasters were 2K or 4K, but they were definitely done back around the time Indy 4 was released (when they were prepping a trilogy box set).

All three original films were remastered in 2008/2009, but Spielberg had only Raiders remastered last year in 4K because of the IMAX release. The Blurays for Doom/Crusade are identical to the HDTV masters that popped up back when Indy 4 was released, so those films didn't receive new masters for the BD, only Raiders.

Indeed...that new Raiders transfer is stunning.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Resolution isn't everything. A good 1080p compression at a high bitrate from a Blu-ray is better than a lousy 4K compression at a relatively low bitrate streamed online. There's a fair amount of skepticism about consumer grade 4K in home threatre circles because of the compromises in the technology and the marketing spin that it's "brighter".