News Stories

Fanboys’ surprising reactions to ‘Star Wars’ 3D

Outcry visceral and widespread; will they boycott rerelease?

Like a lightsaber to the midsection, reactions to news that George Lucas is planning to rerelease 3D versions of the “Star Wars” sextet have been swift and, more often than not, deadly.

But when the Force actually is with them, will fans be able to stay away?

For every “I’ll be first in line,” there are another 20-30 Web comments along the lines of “SW is just a machine now,” “I’ll stay away in droves,” “Lucas is beating a dead horse” or “Never have I seen something so amazing be systematically destroyed.” The outcry has been visceral and widespread.

Waves of complaints and other cris de coeur in the past 24 hours have attacked everything from Lucas’ perceived greed to the fear that he’ll further “ruin” the hallowed original trilogy, from his choice of “Episode I: The Phantom Menace” to start the 3D series as lunatic to the bandwagon glut of 3D films as already too much of a bad thing to, of course, the declaration that anything that brings Jar Jar Binks or the Ewoks back to life should be considered a crime against humanity.

The Hollywood Reporter broke the news Tuesday that Lucas and Fox plan to rerelease the “Star Wars” franchise in state-of-the-art 3D conversions beginning in 2012. The rolling theatrical releases inevitably would set up 3D DVD versions that would facilitate the ultimate home-viewing experience once 3D-capable televisions have become fixtures in four to six years.

A specific date for the first release has not been announced, but sources said Fox and Lucasfilm are looking at a mid-February launch in 2012. Lucas hopes that releasing the film early in the year, outside of summer blockbuster season, will give it an open run at the box office and set up the opportunity to sell merchandise through the balance of the year. The plan under discussion would make the release of the subsequent films in the series an annual event on the film calendar.

On paper, the news should be every fanboy’s dream. The groundbreaking nature and scope of Lucas’s original trilogy, launched in 1977, have practically begged for a 3D treatment to match its ambitions. But for many of the die-hards, that starship has long since sailed.

A lot has happened in the three decades between the theatrical release of “Return of the Jedi” in 1983 and what will be the first of the new 3D versions. For one thing, Lucas made three other movies in the saga, which were almost universally panned. He also has already done several rereleases and recuts of the original trilogy that updated the effects and added new or deleted footage in ways that many found sacrilegious (see: the widespread “Han Shot First” campaign, or Alexandre O. Philippe’s documentary “The People vs. George Lucas,” which had its world premiere at SXSW this year).

For those with a negative view of the post-1983 “Star Wars” output, the idea of yet another iteration — especially using a conversion process many have found lacking in recent releases such as “Clash of the Titans” and “The Last Airbender” — is cause for great despair.

“People are just too down on conversions,” said Jeremy Smith, West Coast editor of Ain’t It Cool News. “It doesn’t even matter what the film is — with the exception of animation. The conversations have gone from ‘Fuck conversion’ to ‘George Lucas is a money-grubbing whatever.’ ”

There has been some enthusiasm for the new development. A lot of parents, who grew up during the original fever, are excited for their kids (and grandkids) to see the original films in the theater. And some just can’t get enough “Star Wars,” no matter what the reservations.

For those on the fence, their loyalty remains partially intact but devoted only to the original trilogy. (NotMalcolmRee’sd comment on Ain’t It Cool News is typical: “i will not sit thru the prequels again even in 10 dimensions.”)

Many wish Lucas would do something new rather than keep futzing with the existing movies — even make a seventh film in the series or a whole new trilogy with new characters, in 3D or otherwise. But in the absence of that, just how many fans would be willing to bypass the chance to see what Lucas would do with 3D?

“My gut feeling is that it will do well, on the level of what the ’97 releases did,” Smith said. “They’ll get the die-hards out, they’ll get people taking their kids. These kids are as into ‘Star Wars’ as their parents. And kids don’t have the hatred toward ‘Star Wars’ as people in my generation.”

The 1997 “special edition” rereleases of “Star Wars,” “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Return of the Jedi” grossed $138 million, $68 million and $45 million, respectively. Notable is the decline in interest as the trilogy progresses (most loyalists place the first two as the only genuine classics), with the second trilogy — the prequels — drawing limitless derision despite having grossed more during release.

Returns on a 3D rerelease of “Phantom Menace,” the first scheduled, are likely to be significantly less than a 3D rerelease of “Star Wars” or “Empire” and thus a questionable test case for future conversions.

By Jay A. Fernandez and Borys Kit

original post: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i39345a5f3df4c124cfcc2d671804b91f?imw=Y

Specification for Naming VFX Image Sequences Released

ETC’s VFX Working Group has published a specification for best practices naming image sequences such as plates and comps. File naming is an essential tool for organizing the multitude of frames that are inputs and outputs from the VFX process. Prior to the publication of this specification, each organization had its own naming scheme, requiring custom processes for each partner, which often resulted in confusion and miscommunication.

The new ETC@USC specification focuses primarily on sequences of individual images. The initial use case was VFX plates, typically delivered as OpenEXR or DPX files. However, the team soon realized that the same naming conventions can apply to virtually any image sequence. Consequently, the specification was written to handle a wide array of assets and use cases.

To ensure all requirements are represented, the working group included over 2 dozen participants representing studios, VFX houses, tool creators, creatives and others.  The ETC@USC also worked closely with MovieLabs to ensure that the specification could be integrated as part of their 2030 Vision.

A key design criteria for this specification is compatibility with existing practices.  Chair of the VFX working group, Horst Sarubin of Universal Pictures, said: “Our studio is committed to being at the forefront of designing best industry practices to modernize and simplify workflows, and we believe this white paper succeeded in building a new foundation for tools to transfer files in the most efficient manner.”

This specification is compatible with other initiatives such as the Visual Effects Society (VES) Transfer Specifications. “We wanted to make it as seamless as possible for everyone to adopt this specification,” said working group co-chair and ETC@USC’s Erik Weaver. “To ensure all perspectives were represented we created a team of industry experts familiar with the handling of these materials and collaborated with a number of industry groups.”

“Collaboration between MovieLabs and important industry groups like the ETC is critical to implementing the 2030 Vision,” said Craig Seidel, SVP of MovieLabs. “This specification is a key step in defining the foundations for better software-defined workflows. We look forward to continued partnership with the ETC on implementing other critical elements of the 2030 Vision.”

The specification is available online for anyone to use.

Oops, something went wrong.