Ghost in the Shell SAC: SSS 3D remake

[shiroth]

Source can be found here and here.

I'm not a big fan of 3D, though is sure to be worth a watch. Solid State Society was pretty decent as well, so i'd say say it's a good choice. Still, i wouldn't have minded something new.

[sketchley]

So, from the links I've gleaned that it's the exact same movie (plus new intro), made 3D?

<sigh> Can 3D go away, now? It's a gimmick to part more money from gullible movie goers, pure and simple.

Anyhow, I guess there is one good thing about this rerelease - the movie is finally getting a theatrical release.

[eugimon]

a gimmick? Like stereo sound or color? Whether 3D adds anything to the movie going experience is dependent on the skills of those making the movie, the technology itself is just a tool.

[shiroth]

Anyhow, I guess there is one good thing about this rerelease - the movie is finally getting a theatrical release.

This, though like i said new material would have been much preferred. Do hope it's released here in cinemas though, because otherwise this announcement means nothing.

Edited November 22, 2010 by shiroth

[sketchley]

a gimmick? Like stereo sound or color? Whether 3D adds anything to the movie going experience is dependent on the skills of those making the movie, the technology itself is just a tool.

Do colour and stereo sound cause headaches in 15% of the viewing audience? Did either force a viewing surcharge on the audience? Will the loss of colour and stereo sound affect the story as much as the loss of 3D?

It's a gimmick to differentiate the theatre experience from the home theatre experience. Pure and simple. And now that TVs 3D TVs are being massed produced, I'm sure they'll replace it with a new gimmick. Perhaps we'll see a revival of Smell-o-vision .

[eugimon]

Do colour and stereo sound cause headaches in 15% of the viewing audience? Did either force a viewing surcharge on the audience? Will the loss of colour and stereo sound affect the story as much as the loss of 3D?

It's a gimmick to differentiate the theatre experience from the home theatre experience. Pure and simple. And now that TVs 3D TVs are being massed produced, I'm sure they'll replace it with a new gimmick. Perhaps we'll see a revival of Smell-o-vision .

And if you don't want to pay more or if it causes you discomfort or you can't see in 3D etc, you don't have to go to see the 3D version. Every 3D movie outside of IMAX is has been and will be available in the traditional format.

If we follow you're argument, then color and stereo and surround sound, all these are also just gimmicks to "differentiate the theater experience from the home experience." All of these technologies came about well before they were adopted at home and most homes still don't have surround sound for that matter.

As for using it as an excuse to raise ticket prices, ticket prices have been going sky rocketing for the past 20 years, long before the current 3D movie boom. In fact, I remember distinctly my local theater having to raise prices in order to do the upgrades necessary to show the Star Wars Special Editions and that was just to make them THX compliant.

For many people, movies are an immersive visual experience. 3D, when done well can help sell that illusion. Just because you don't seem to get anything doesn't mean that people who are gullible chumps.

[one_klump]

Theaters get a bad rap for the ticket prices they have to charge. Almost all of the ticket sales go towards the rental of the actual film. The theater itself makes the real revenue from concession sales.

Add that to the fact that the 3D movies require a digital projector, which cost about $80,000 EACH, compared to the old school reel projectors at $15,000, and were already installed in the theater. My theater has 12 traditional reel projectors that were imported from Germany just sitting upstairs in storage because there is no use for them.

But here is the kicker - the 3D movies are played on the same digital projector as the normal 2D movies are. There is no special hardware involved to make it 3D. However, the people who go see a 2D movie on a new projector are not hit with a surcharge. How is that even fair?

[anime52k8]

For many people, movies are an immersive visual experience. 3D, when done well can help sell that illusion. Just because you don't seem to get anything doesn't mean that people who are gullible chumps.

There's no such thing as 3D done well. 3D is always crap, no exceptions.

[Vic Mancini]

a gimmick? Like stereo sound or color? Whether 3D adds anything to the movie going experience is dependent on the skills of those making the movie, the technology itself is just a tool.

Agreed. Count me out of the current 3D backlash, I don't have a problem with it.

I have more problems with redundant use of CG modeling. I hated Ghost in the Shell 2.0. I like CG for valks, and tachikomas, but I don't understand the point of using it to make a CG half-naked Motoko who dives off the roof of a building when the non CG version looks better and more natural within the film.

As long as a 3D SSS has no pointless CG added for the sake of adding CG, I'm interested. Even though it's probably my least favorite GITS story.

[eugimon]

There's no such thing as 3D done well. 3D is always crap, no exceptions.

Whatever. A well composed shot is going to be well composed, 3D or no. Shooting it in 3D isn't going to destroy the composition. On the other hand, 3D can really enhance the sense of space and movement as it did with the flight sequences in How to Train Your Dragon, The Owl Movie With The Ridiculous Name I Can Never Remember and Avatar.

Granted, that awful 2D to 3D conversion process can make something look horrible but that's no different than a horrible sound mix pulling you out of the movie or poor camera work, etc. It's all up to the competence of the person using the tool, the tool itself isn't intrinsically good or bad.

Edited November 22, 2010 by eugimon

[Agent ONE]

3D was stupid in the 70's

3D is stupid now

[sketchley]

As for using it as an excuse to raise ticket prices,

Uhm, no. The incremental raising of ticket prices over decades is a symptom of inflation. A 3D surcharge is not, and is totally distinct and separate.

Though, as one_klump reminded me, the raising ticket prices have more to do with the raising production costs of movies than being directly tied to inflation per se. Where does the lion's share of those production costs go? The spectacle of the movie-going experience, which is oft superfluous to the story itself.

For many people, movies are an immersive visual experience.

Which, as an opinion about movies, is a shame. Simply because it neglects or ignores the most important aspect: the writing.

Does 3D improve the storytelling? Sure, it improves the visuals, but the same could be said about CG - and there are oodles of examples of how CG technology has been abused to create spectacle at the loss of writing. I'm sure in a few more years, there will be oodles of like 3D movies.

I won't disagree that a lot of people go to movies for the spectacle ("it must be seen on the big screen!"), as I was once one of those people that fell into the trap of hype, too. However, now I'm not, and I want something more fulfilling than spectacle for spectacle's sake. Again, are the stories of 3D movies that much better because of 3D, or are they still run-of-the-mill, cookie cutter fluff?

Now, getting back to the topic, how is 3D going to improve this particular movie? Are they reanimating scenes to make the individual elements (the animation layers) 3D? Or are the different elements going to still be 2D drawings moving in 3D? AKA faux 3D?

Also, what are the producers going to do to compensate for the lack-of-brightness inherent in 3D movies? The movie is pretty dark and gloomy to begin with. Are they going to manipulate it so that it's dim and murky? Bad combination for 3D, IMHO.

Edited November 23, 2010 by sketchley

[Major Focker]

got me thinking... if they released this to theaters outside japan... will we also get 3D subtitles?

[Agent ONE]

..

Does 3D improve the storytelling? Sure, it improves the visuals,..

No it doesn't. Its just annoying. I have been to a all the recent 3D movies, and all I walked away with was knowing they took an extra 5 bucks from me. I agree it may be more expensive to produce (though I think they charge a handsome margin) but I don't want the feature. It in NO way adds to any aspect of the story OR visuals. I could watch any 3D movie without the feature and enjoy it just as much.

[EXO]

I'm glad they charge extra for 3D. That way I don't pay for it when I watch the 2D version.

[Agent ONE]

I'm glad they charge extra for 3D. That way I don't pay for it when I watch the 2D version.

RIGHT! I am SO satisfied when I watch I watch the 2D version of a movie that had a 3D release. I feel like I am sticking it to the man.

[BeyondTheGrave]

So, from the links I've gleaned that it's the exact same movie (plus new intro), made 3D?

<sigh> Can 3D go away, now? It's a gimmick to part more money from gullible movie goers, pure and simple.

Anyhow, I guess there is one good thing about this rerelease - the movie is finally getting a theatrical release.

Yay for theatrical release but boo on the 3d useage. I think 3d is overused now. I could see if it was used every so often but no its borderline overkill. I'd rather have another story/ season than this.

The Owl Movie With The Ridiculous Name I Can Never Remember

Legend of the Guardians