Jaws re-released in 3D...just the thought

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Quint over at Ain't it Cool News was discussing this and I must say I'm not so opposed to the idea either. Nothing added just made into the new style 3d, not cheaply done like Clash or Alice though.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44656

He also thinks that it would simply be an awesome idea to simply restore the Jaws print to it's absolute finest and put it back out there for all to see using a well developed marketing scheme. This works best for me, no additives, no preservatives, just Jaws in its natural raw state.

Personally I love that idea. Imagine a whole separate generation given the give of Jaws on the big screen in a massive release. I'd be there.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'd love Jaws to be remastered and re-released on the big screen, but not in 3D. Never in 3D.

[Andy 4,121]

I wonder how many people would be confused that it was a straight re-release of Jaws 3-D (1983).

[Quintus 5,399]

Well it might get Dennis Quaid's hopes up, before swiftly dashing them, again.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

First Mark Olivarez looses his credibility, and now this?

Et tu, Joey?

[Quintus 5,399]

They're probably just going soft, in their old age. It happens.

[indy4 155]

They should switch the gun Brody has in the climax to a walkie-talkie.

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

Shark still looks fake.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

And they can finally get rid of that fake looking shark, and replace it with a realistic CGI one.

[Quintus 5,399]

They should switch the gun Brody has in the climax to a walkie-talkie.

that tickled me, you fucker

I'm lying in bed trying not to rattle it too much sniggering, don't want to wake her up.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I can just imagine the horror of a Jaws Special Edition. The colors will be all wrong and everything will be too dark, the shark will be digitally enhanced and the CGI will be completely obvious and draw attention to itself, various changes to make the movie more in line with modern Spielberg (Quint will be removed from the scene where he's yelling on the deck of the Orca as Brody says goodbye), Williams' score will be edited out in critical moments.

[Jay 37,346]

Shark still looks fake.

Ha!

[indy4 155]

They should switch the gun Brody has in the climax to a walkie-talkie.

that tickled me, you fucker

I'm lying in bed trying not to rattle it too much sniggering, don't want to wake her up.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Shark still looks fake.

not so much

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The shark always looked fine to me in the original.

[A24 4,331]

You can count me out from this whole 3D business. Yesterday I saw a demo of a new 3D TV - my first real encounter with the technology - and it looks terrible. The double edging, the odd colours, it looks like an amusement park attraction.

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

Sounds like a shit demonstration to me. In the 3D theatres I've been to I experienced none of those issues. I don't think a crummy instore demo puts you in a postion of judgement, strangely enough.

[A24 4,331]

I'm sure some of the badness is due to the TV itself (might've been a 3D LED TV) but I've heard people complaining about things like strange, darkish colours or movement blur (which I didn't really notice) before. The thing that bothers me is that, even if you improve on those weaknesses, it still feels like funfair amusement. Just the sheer fact the you HAVE to wear those glasses!

[Quintus 5,399]

It's a state of mind Alex, don't be afraid of trying new things - embrace this new way of looking at the cinematic world - when done properly, it's a truly mesmerising thing.

Datameister is literally the only person I know off were the effect was lost on him, which leads me to think that it's a very small minority of people whom 3D has no good effect upon. In my experience, the image is ultra sharp and the colours vivid (they over-brighten the film so that it is the correct brightness after putting the [comfortable] glasses on). The only slight issue I have is with the minor blurring during moments of action and fast movement - it's an inherent problem of the native 24fps of cinema screens and something James Cameron is exerting his influence over - he sees it as a priority to get digital theatres to upgrade to 60fps as soon as possible, thus completely eradicating the problem. To be honest, I've had an issue with jerky panning shots since long before this new 3D lark and so I'd appreciate the upgrade regardless of 3D, it's just that the problem appears slightly exaggerated in 3D.

[A24 4,331]

It's a state of mind Alex, don't be afraid of trying new things - embrace this new way of looking at the cinematic world ...

Or you welcome and embrace the funfair factor because it sits perfectly in line with how you perceive movies, Quint. I know what I saw wasn't very attractive. Who is right? Datameister is the only one?! WTF? What are the odds? Really, I've read several comments here at JWfan of people who were impressed at first but got tired of it during their second or third 3D experience.

Alex

[publicist 4,643]

A JAWS 3-D re-release in spruced-up 3-D has to be Dennis Quaids worst nightmare. From what i recall, the film runs close to two hours in it's original edit...it's your call, Universal!

As for JAWS, i would go and see it in 3-D (which other reason could i have, after having seen the flat version a gazillion times?). But please, no digital tinkering with the shark. The last thing Bruce needs is more naturalism - it's a perfect movie monster.

[Quintus 5,399]

Alex, Clash of the Titans is the funfair factor, the sort of movie I steer clear of; at least unless word of mouth strongly says otherwise. I haven't seen that movie and don't intend to. You have this funny idea that you got my tastes down, but honestly you know fuck all about my taste, let alone in movies, so back off with the cretinous attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you, it just makes you look like a smarmy little pussy.

I like to be entertained by movies, good movies, and I don't have a genre of choice and I don't have a genre I avoid - I just like good movies, so if from that you percieve that I'm only or especially into certain sorts of movies then that's fine with me, but know that you ain't got a friggin' clue mate, not really. My taste in film is good and healthy, compared to your terminally limited, dull as dishwater outlook on all things cinematic. I don't even think you're a lover of film, or a fan - I think you're too bitter and contemptuous to be, which is why I never take any notice of your 'reviews'.

[bondo 33]

It looks fine as it is, so my question is... why does it need to be released in 3D?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Because:

The Third Dimension is Terror!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Fuck 3D.

[Quintus 5,399]

It's bound to flop, just like Avatar did! Oh wait...

No Koray, you'll never live that stonker of a prediction down

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It's going to excel, but hopefully will die later. People are stupid, Quint. They go to see movies in 3D because that's what they think they should do. They know nothing about it, don't really care, they just want it to say 3D on their ticket. I get people who complain to me that their movie is not in 3D, and then when I tell them we only have it in 2D, they don't want to see it. At all. What is that? Not to mention there was that time our projectionist screwed up, and a showing of Avatar was in 2D, and no one noticed. Only 1 guy came out like 20 minutes into the movie and asked if it was in 3D or not.

It's a marketing tool, nothing else.

[Ollie 1,059]

I'd prefer they just clean up the original print and re-release it as is.

They've already effed up one DVD by redoing the soundtrack for DTS. That was a huge mistake. Thankfully they came to their senses for the last DVD release and put the original mono soundtrack back in.

[Quintus 5,399]

It's going to excel, but hopefully will die later. People are stupid, Quint. They go to see movies in 3D because that's what they think they should do. They know nothing about it, don't really care, they just want it to say 3D on their ticket. I get people who complain to me that their movie is not in 3D, and then when I tell them we only have it in 2D, they don't want to see it. At all. What is that? Not to mention there was that time our projectionist screwed up, and a showing of Avatar was in 2D, and no one noticed. Only 1 guy came out like 20 minutes into the movie and asked if it was in 3D or not.

It's a marketing tool, nothing else.

Lol okay, if you say so.

For the record: it isn't just this new 3D malarky which attracts the chavs and the rest of the herd in droves - don't be naive - every Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich film ever has gotten by just fine, pre-3D. It's the films themselves people want to see; not the 3D effects. I think you're not giving 'people' enough credit.

People won't suddenly queue around the block to see Jane Austin's Emma, remastered in 3D.

[A24 4,331]

I get people who complain to me that their movie is not in 3D, and then when I tell them we only have it in 2D, they don't want to see it.

Really? Well, that once again seems to prove my 'funfair attraction' theory!

[Wojo 2,453]

It is a little known fact that people have been watching movies in 3D ever since the beginning of motion pictures.

The three traditional dimensions are length, width, and height. The concept of time as the "fourth dimension" was made popular in H.G. Wells' The Time Machine. So naturally, a motion picture has the length and width of the picture screen, and motion implies that the tape reel is progressing, thus adding time as the third dimension. 3D.

So while you all thought you were watching Avatar in 3D, you were really watching it in 4D.

I wish people would get it right...

[A24 4,331]

People won't suddenly queue around the block to see Jane Austin's Emma, remastered in 3D.

No, because people will ask themselves, "Jane Austen in 3D? Why?!"

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It's going to excel, but hopefully will die later. People are stupid, Quint. They go to see movies in 3D because that's what they think they should do. They know nothing about it, don't really care, they just want it to say 3D on their ticket. I get people who complain to me that their movie is not in 3D, and then when I tell them we only have it in 2D, they don't want to see it. At all. What is that? Not to mention there was that time our projectionist screwed up, and a showing of Avatar was in 2D, and no one noticed. Only 1 guy came out like 20 minutes into the movie and asked if it was in 3D or not.

It's a marketing tool, nothing else.

Lol okay, if you say so.

For the record: it isn't just this new 3D malarky which attracts the chavs and the rest of the herd in droves - don't be naive - every Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich film ever has gotten by just fine, pre-3D. It's the films themselves people want to see; not the 3D effects. I think you're not giving 'people' enough credit.

People won't suddenly queue around the block to see Jane Austin's Emma, remastered in 3D.

Well when you get tons of movies being converted to 3D in post, you know it's a tool. Hey, everyone is going to see this movie anyway, why not get an extra 4 bucks from each ticket? Did we talk about that on the board yet? 3D tickets are now $17 for the first 10 days.

[Quintus 5,399]

We drove out of our way to see Avatar in 3D, not because we didn't want to see it in 2D, but because we/I wanted to experience Cameron's return to film exactly how he wanted us to see it. I was incredibly keen to see a visionary's last ten years of work and I was ready to embrace what some were calling the next step in cinematic entertainment. My motivations for going weren't purely for the rollercoaster ride, but I was sure as hell glad that we got one anyway, just like Raiders provided nearly thirty years previously. The technology has got sweet fuck all to do with it - certain directors just know how to thrill audiences, given the tools.

[A24 4,331]

It is a little known fact that people have been watching movies in 3D ever since the beginning of motion pictures.

The three traditional dimensions are length, width, and height. The concept of time as the "fourth dimension" was made popular in H.G. Wells' The Time Machine. So naturally, a motion picture has the length and width of the picture screen, and motion implies that the tape reel is progressing, thus adding time as the third dimension. 3D.

So while you all thought you were watching Avatar in 3D, you were really watching it in 4D.

I wish people would get it right...

I'm sorry to break this to you, wojo, but the 'fourth dimension' is no longer "time", it's a space.

[Wojo 2,453]

Don't apologize. It depends on your view of physics, whether through Newton or Einstein and later. Even if you consider space to be a part of "space-time" you don't have the full flexibility of the three classical dimensions because of that pesky second law of thermodynamics: entropy.

I ought to post the photo of me looking like Roy Orbison with my 3D glasses.

But seriously, here's a scary concept from the LA Times: 3-D surge may doom movie stars.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-bigpicture6-2010apr06,0,488833.story

[Jay 37,346]

Shark still looks fake.

not so much

The shark always looked fine to me in the original.

Guys, he was quoting Back To The Future II

[Hlao-roo 389]

People won't suddenly queue around the block to see Jane Austin's Emma, remastered in 3D.

No, because people will ask themselves, "Jane Austen in 3D? Why?!"

Heaving bosoms!

[Datameister 2,042]

Datameister is literally the only person I know off were the effect was lost on him, which leads me to think that it's a very small minority of people whom 3D has no good effect upon.

You've rather deeply misunderstood my position. Actually, I'm a big proponent of 3D technology - it's been a bit of an obsession of mine for years now. It's just that that makes me more aware when it's flawed. In the case of Avatar, there were indeed flaws, at least in the conditions in which I saw it. The backgrounds weren't far enough behind the screen and there were discrepancies in the brightness between the two images. Both issues could have been caused by the theater where I saw the film and in no way suggest that 3D "has no good effect" on me. I did have issues with some cinematographic choices, most of which have to do with creating effects that only happen with cameras, not eyes. But again, that's not 3D itself - that's the way Cameron decided to use it.

The only slight issue I have is with the minor blurring during moments of action and fast movement - it's an inherent problem of the native 24fps of cinema screens and something James Cameron is exerting his influence over - he sees it as a priority to get digital theatres to upgrade to 60fps as soon as possible, thus completely eradicating the problem. To be honest, I've had an issue with jerky panning shots since long before this new 3D lark and so I'd appreciate the upgrade regardless of 3D, it's just that the problem appears slightly exaggerated in 3D.

I would greatly appreciate a switch to 60fps. I didn't know Cameron was pushing for that...good for him!

[Charlie Brigden 7]

JAWS, no. JAWS 3-D, yes.

As for 3-D on its own, well I'm not impressed so far. I'm willing to give it another chance though.

[Wojo 2,453]

I don't think Jaws would gain anything from being in 3D. I would love to see it on the large screen, certainly, but not wearing an extra pair of glasses.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

"This time, it's up close and personal."

[Quintus 5,399]

Just when you thought it was safe to go to the opticians.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

"Here's blood in yer eye!"

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

Shark still looks fake.

not so much

The shark always looked fine to me in the original.

Guys, he was quoting Back To The Future II

Thanks.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Everybody knows that.

Still, the shark does not look bad in the original. I'm certain it was the sequels and that ridiculous looking dated computerized marquee allegedly from 2015 where the shark actually looked fake.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

Everybody knows that.

Still, the shark does not look bad in the original. I'm certain it was the sequels and that ridiculous looking dated computerized marquee allegedly from 2015 where the shark actually looked fake.

I still dig those rubber teeth. Funeee!

[Quintus 5,399]

Just for the benefit of those sitting at the back: the real reason the BTTF2 joke works is purely down to Fox's reaction to the shark - he screams his head off in terror, until he realises it's only a special effect, the point being that all those back in the day who said the shark looked fake still spent their entire time during the movie fucking shitting themselves.

I've found it quite amazing over ther years, the number of people who don't really get the joke.

[Jay 37,346]

Oh I always got it

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Really? Well, that once again seems to prove my 'funfair attraction' theory!

I feel bad for James Cameron.

With Avater he genuinly was trying to change the way movies are made, and the way we view movies. But like you said, for most people 3D is just the latest thing, the latest fasion accessory. Like the Crazy Frog Ringtone. You get it, because everyone else has it!