Star Wars films re-released in 3-D starting 2012.

YouCurse wrote:

Divine Virus wrote:Mario is terrible though. The milk has gone off.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Super Mario Galaxy 1.

Further proof that the Mario franchise should have died after Super Mario Bros 3.

Fix'd.

Somebody explain to me how Mario is terrible, and how Super Mario Galaxy is terrible. I grew up on Super Mario 64. I would still play that game if I had my N64. Super Mario Galaxy (and it's sequel) is a critical and financial success, I wouldn't consider that terrible.

*looks at title*

*looks at debate*

really?

Quite RX.

Get back on topic.

Mario is amazing and will never die. Try as you might, you will fail. Nintendo FTW. :face:

OT: Me? I wouldn't have a problem seeing the original Star Wars movies again. I mean we are talking about the originnal SW movies back in theaters, again! Even though it would be 3D. I'd be willing to see it.

The prequals? Hmmm, maybe but, probably not.

Divine Virus wrote:Mario is amazing and will never die. Try as you might, you will fail. Nintendo FTW. :face:

OT: Me? I wouldn't have a problem seeing the original Star Wars movies again. I mean we are talking about the originnal SW movies back in theaters, again! Even though it would be 3D. I'd be willing to see it.

The prequals? Hmmm, maybe but, probably not.

I agree with this. As long as they don't buttfuck it with shitty 3D and actually attempt to make it blend better. While I don't like Avatar too much, it's 3D was used more for immersion than cheap tricks. If they can do that with the original ones then I have no problem.

Also, off-topic:

I'll ask a simple question

WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO WATCH THE PHANTOM MENACE IN 3-D NEXT YEAR?

Do you seriously have the masocistic urge to see Jar Jar Binks in 3 dimensions?

Divine Virus wrote:Your suggesting that I GIVE A FUCK?!

It's a fuckin' skull on the fuckin helmet. Both are.

Are you suggesting that just because you can't be arsed to give a fuck, that we should all just lay down and let Bungie whatever the fuck they want just because they can? And are you further suggesting that, because there are vague similarities between Raynor's mask and Emile's, that we should ignore all differences and treat them the same? Because if so, you can go fuck yourself. In a debate, the "I don't care so you shouldn't care" argument doesn't fly. We may not be in the debate section, but that as far as I'm concerned, any further use of such obviously and painfully ignorant and falacious arguments will get you infracted for trolling and/or stupidity.

Let's analyze these two skulls.

Emile

• Emile is special forces, and thus above the crap of regular soldiers. He should never willing deface his armor if it didn't grant some sort of keen advantage, and even then, he should be hesitant.
  
• Emile is a Spartan, a soldier trained to win and not give two fucks about his own appearance. He would never sacrifice an advantage in battle just to look slightly more badass to any ten year olds that might happen by, let alone his ability to see.

Raynor

• Raynor's skull is standard issue for many Marines (the concept, not the image itself), so its addition wasn't defacement.
  
• Raynor's just another Marine who happens to rise to leadership. One of the only differences in his training as compared to the next is that he was a criminal before, and so he knows how to rob a train and such things.
  
• It is further made from what is almost clearly two way paint (note that it isn't solid, but just a series of dots that form a skull when viewed from afar but don't hamper one's vieew up close).
  
• Raynor spends more time with the visor up than down during the game. The skull is not very present.

So basically, they're both skulls on the visors of power armor. Similarities end there.

I'll ask again

GET BACK ON TOPIC OR I WILL ASK FOR THIS THREAD TO BE LOCKED.

I apologize Vigil, you asked twice and I failed to do so twice. I'm sorry.

I removed the post and will now post in topic.

Starting now: I think I'd still may see the prequals...uhh, well probably not. Point is though, I could put up with the 3 bad movies being re-released if it means seeing the original in theaters again.

i want to see empire strikes back in 3-D, specially the hoth scenes.

thats bout it.

If I was going to see any of them, it would probably be Empire.

Sadly that would be in 2016

If it is good 3D, then I would love to see the Pod Racing scene from Phantom Menance. No matter how shitty the rest of the movie is, that whole little side thing is awesome!

Yeah, I would lo-wait...2016?! O_o Holy shit, it better be good by then. Oh no, that means they plan to be shoving 3D on us well up to then.

I'm pretty sure this fad will have died by then and Lucas will give up half-way.

Seriously, this current 3-D is pointless and contributes virtually nothing to the cinematic experience.

Bring it back when it's V.R.

Vigil wrote:
Bring it back when it's V.R.

Hey, what's Qui Gon do-- OH SH-- *slice slice*

Vigil wrote:I'm pretty sure this fad will have died by then and Lucas will give up half-way.

This exactly what I was going to say.
IMO, 3D is as lame as motion controls for video games.

whats the point of 3D anyway? another scam to sell TV's if you ask me.

I liked the 3-D technique used in Avatar. Only annoying part was that they made the subtitles 3-D as well, so it was kinda iffy to read..

Vtrooper wrote:whats the point of 3D anyway? another scam to sell TV's if you ask me.

It's a way to keep cinemas relevant when most people have home cinema systems.

they have 3d tvs already.
they're just a bit pricey.

Pricey enough that buying one, considering the mild benefits, is practically ridiculous.

Some digibox providers here are now providing TV channels in 3-D.

It was only 6 months ago they were doing the same for HD channels.

Tis a fad.

Well HD actually does make a difference and makes viewing tv more enjoyable.
I've yet to see something in 3D that wasn't distracting.

Baconsen wrote:Well HD actually does make a difference and makes viewing tv more enjoyable.
I've yet to see something in 3D that wasn't distracting.

I've seen both Avatar and RE: Afterlife in 3-D.

Neither of which sold me on this 3-D gimmick. It makes the background a little clearer and makes central objects more defined and in your face, but to be honest, the overall picture quality isn't that different from 2-D, and it's a hell of a cheaper and easier on the eyes.

Besides, watching non-HD programs on a HD tv just looks weird..