Richard Penna 3,686 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 JP is just over 2 hours long, and Titanic is (considering the credits) just over 3 hours. They probably don't need 2 years to do it to the same standard.I wouldn't mind seeing Titanic again actually - many years since I last watched it, and contrary to popular bashing, I think it's a very effective film. Plus, I'm very curious to know whether the conversion really holds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 452 Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 JP is just over 2 hours long, and Titanic is (considering the credits) just over 3 hours. They probably don't need 2 years to do it to the same standard.I wouldn't mind seeing Titanic again actually - many years since I last watched it, and contrary to popular bashing, I think it's a very effective film. Plus, I'm very curious to know whether the conversion really holds up.True. I think 6-8 months is enough for Stereo D to deliver a quality 3D conversion for JP (especially since the film is completed)... but I hope Spielberg and Universal remastered the film before starting the conversion process.And I think Titanic holds up really well after 15 years. Some of the dialogue is a bit corny, but it's still quite an achievement movie-wise and technologically. It's still one of Cameron's best-paced and moving films to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,306 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 The conversion will depend on the master they used. If it was the same as the BluRay, it's going to look shit. Needs a 4K scan for best results. Surely Spielberg knows this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,686 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 By that you mean going to the edited negative and re-scanning?It's not like they should need to fix the image like they had to do with Jaws, surely - this is a recent film. But yes, the blu-ray rip I saw looked unremarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,306 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Essentially, yes. They would need to go back to the original negative and scan it at 4K as was done for Titanic. The original print is be assembled from the in-camera negatives, and whatever renders ILM did (I think 50 shots in all, at a very low resolution due to technilogical constraints; those shots will never look better unless ILM actually re-scan the original plate photography and re-render the effects at higher resolutions... which would be costly to say the least.)Depending on the state of Universal's archiving, the print should be in decent condition (no major dirt, scratches or negative damage-- but it is two decades old), and it will then need all the film grain scrubbed out with DNR before 3D conversion can be started (it can then be layered back on after conversion). If they attempt this with a 10 year old DVD master, they're crazy. The difference between film scanners from 2000 and 2012 is humungous (just compare the old HD master of Aliens with the new 2010 4K version). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 if the same care is used that was used in Titanic then JP will be fun.The whole sequence in the kitchen and when the Raptor jumps towards the ceiling.The T-Rex trying to get the kids through the explorer's roof will be enhanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 i think mir dna with be 3dized...will they put cgi 3d glasses to alan, ellie, malcom and genaro?? i hope not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ren 75 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 I can hardly wait for this! I hope I'll be able to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 I don't really care for this at all. I didn't even bother with Titanic in three dee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 That is probably the best 3D conversion ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 In the end it still pales to the original theatrical though, right? I mean, do any of you have a 3D TV at home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 The original release of Titanic is what made us fall in love with it. The 3D did not enhance it as much as people claim. I would have been fine without it and will continue to be. For me, it was more about seeing it in IMAX on an enormous screen with heads the size of a building and deafening sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 In the end it still pales to the original theatrical though, right? I mean, do any of you have a 3D TV at home?But it has the correct starred sky now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 In the end it still pales to the original theatrical though, right? I mean, do any of you have a 3D TV at home?not yet but someday. I find it idiotic that people outright reject 3D, it is the future, whether its soon or later, it will happen. There will come a point where 3D will be available without glasses and when that happens it will become the standard.I really want to see college basketball and football in 3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 I'm not outright rejecting it. I've seen several films in 3D, and disliked the experience every time. It's been around almost as long as film itself has, so it definitely isn't going anywhere, but it is becoming more prominent.It's a cash grab at the end of it. We see life in three dimensions already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 3D movies need to seriously up the ante. Incorporate in-theater effects that made the 3D films at Disney and Universal a special experience. So, lasers, smoke, spraying water, smells, penguin orchestra, Statler and Waldorf in the balcony, Terminators to either side of the theater with machine guns, and of course, seats that dance to Michael Jackson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I've never had a bad 3D experience, though I've seen some bad 3D films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 For me, it was more about seeing it in IMAX on an enormous screen with heads the size of a buildingSo Kate Winslett's huge tracts of land would have been the size of a building? Damnit, I missed the IMAX train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 452 Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 For me, it was more about seeing it in IMAX on an enormous screen with heads the size of a buildingSo Kate Winslett's huge tracts of land would have been the size of a building?But her breasts weren't in 3D... the only disappointing thing about the 3D re-release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Her breasts were most definitely in 3D! and they were stunning! Ren and Gruesome Son of a Bitch 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 452 Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 Yes, Winslet's breasts are nice. Yes, the movie was in 3D. But her breasts didn't have that 3D 'pop' in that portrait scene. The only part where you wanted to 'touch' is that closeup shot of her hips as DiCaprio shifts nervously and tells her to lie on the couch. Thank goodness the 3D rotoscopers were sensible enough to make that part of the foreground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I stopped noticing the 3D at some point. The best examples were earlier in the movie like the wreck, which had serious dimension. I memorably immediately thought "holy shit, the entire movie is going to be like this??" I feel like I eventually adjusted and lost the effect? In a weird way, it didn't feel much different from watching it normally by the second half of the movie. It was just absolutely enormous and clearly destroying my hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Btw will they make mr. DNA in 3D also?I should hope not. That cartoon presentation is just that - a cartoon presentation on a 2D screen.It could easily be replaced with an animated 3D clip. It would make the movie more up to date and less 'outdated' for younger viewers.Anyway I would prefer a remake (with the same music and same technology), shot in 3D, over a 3D conversion of the original movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 7,495 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 JURASSIC PARK 4-EVER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I prefer The Lost World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 7,495 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 THE LOST WORLD RULES TOO!Anything JURASSIC PARK...I want more, more, more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 You sound like a deluded fanboy.Not that there's anything wrong with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 7,495 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 You sound like a deluded fanboy.Not that there's anything wrong with that!When it comes to JP, I'm definitely a FANBOY!! All the way. I could eat and drink JURASSIC PARK all day long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 And I think that with the untimely death of Crichton, the series should have definitively ended by now. JP2 was "oh, you wrote a book? that's nice; I'll use the title, some of the characters, the name of the island, and the giant tractor trailer...the rest we'll just make up." JP3 really didn't cement the legitimacy of the franchise.However, I know that one logical counter-argument is that Star Trek should have died in 1991 with Roddenberry. (Yes, I realize it's a stretch) So to each their own, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 7,495 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 And I think that with the untimely death of Crichton, the series should have definitively ended by now. JP2 was "oh, you wrote a book? that's nice; I'll use the title, some of the characters, the name of the island, and the giant tractor trailer...the rest we'll just make up." JP3 really didn't cement the legitimacy of the franchise.However, I know that one logical counter-argument is that Star Trek should have died in 1991 with Roddenberry. (Yes, I realize it's a stretch) So to each their own, I suppose.No, it shouldn't have died. It should have blossomed on, in the myriad of different possibilities the fictional universe offers up. It's an outrage that it's been more than a decade since the last film -- with only a videogame a couple of years ago to satisfy a little bit of the extreme hunger.JURASSIC PAAAAAAAAARK!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 All I want is more Dodgson. I don't care about the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,352 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 We got Dodgson here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I think it's time to repost that old vid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faleel 5,346 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Nobody Cares! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wycket 36 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 And I think that with the untimely death of Crichton, the series should have definitively ended by now. JP2 was "oh, you wrote a book? that's nice; I'll use the title, some of the characters, the name of the island, and the giant tractor trailer...the rest we'll just make up." JP3 really didn't cement the legitimacy of the franchise.However, I know that one logical counter-argument is that Star Trek should have died in 1991 with Roddenberry. (Yes, I realize it's a stretch) So to each their own, I suppose.So should Bond have died after Fleming did? That means we would have never gotten any film after Goldfinger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 First of all, I conceded that my counter-argument was a stretch, because many of the most popular Star Trek incarnations had minimal input or less from Roddenberry, such as Star Trek II and the DS9 series.Secondly, your argument ignores the fact that many Bond films to be made after 1964 are based on books or stories that Ian Fleming wrote and/or published before his death. Furthermore, Glidrose Productions (later, Ian Fleming Publications) authorized several authors to continue writing James Bond novels, even into the present day and beyond -- the next Bond novel is by William Boyd and due for release in the autumn of 2013. The Bond franchise is in good hands and is in far, far better shape than the Star Trek franchise.But no author has come forward and written sequel novels about Islas Nublar y Sorna, or invented new islands or continental facilities where dinosaurs are being created, released, and then avoided. A few applications of napalm to the islands would make sequels unnecessary and this fictional "universe"....extinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wycket 36 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I still don't see why you think Crichton was an integral part of Jurassic Park. Yes he wrote the original novel, but even the first film changed things. The second film used a few bits no different than any Bond film after Live and Let Die (even before that You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever were barely recognizable to the Fleming works). I think the fact that no one has stepped forward and taken this franchise over doesn't mean nobody could, nor does it mean they couldn't do a better job than Speilberg. Would you be opposed to someone taking over Star Wars after Lucas died? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 The issue is that there really isn't anything new to tell about Jurassic Park, has nothing to do with who's behind the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 155 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 But there are certainly new spectacles to behold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Yeah but spectacle requires plot to be more than blockbuster trash. That was the fate of Jurassic Park III. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 155 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 What's wrong with blockbuster trash? With the exception of the first one, there was never much to say with the JP series. Just give me some entertainment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 It's like fast food, good once in awhile but not on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 155 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Exactly, which is why it could be a great one-time trip to the theatre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 But why settle for less when you can do something better? There are plenty of great stories you could come up with involving dinosaurs. I don't see why it has to be pegged under the JP logo. Brónach 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 because if it is not pegged under the JP logo the design of the dinosaurs is utter crap.if they used those desings in all dinosaur movies, i would be the most happy person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I'm all for more modern and refined reconstructions. The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are from a film. They are imperfect. They're certainly not holy "designs" or reconstructions that shall not be touched.Also it is certainly possible to make a story involving dinosaurs that doesn't make use of the famous species everybody knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 well i can accept updated revisions... but using the same design... But no author has come forward and written sequel novels about Islas Nublar y Sorna, or invented new islands or continental facilities where dinosaurs are being created, released, and then avoided. A few applications of napalm to the islands would make sequels unnecessary and thisfictional "universe"....extinct.do these count?: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Would you be opposed to someone taking over Star Wars after Lucas died?I wish someone would have taken over Star Wars fifteen years ago and made Lucas an executive consultant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,352 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=470548322990056&set=a.201423149902576.52889.170889472955944&type=1Huge version: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/176614_470548322990056_1108411846_o.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis 245 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Great! Now give us the 20th Anniversary complete score deluxe edition! Intrada? Someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now