George Lucas to (Re-re-)Re-release Star Wars in 3D, Because Fans Haven't Given Him Enough Money Yet

Source

Rumors have been bandied about for a while, but today we finally got official confirmation that George Lucas would be re-releasing the Star Wars saga in 3D, with one film per year put out starting with The Phantom Menace in 2012. This is fantastic news for the millions of Star Wars fans who were afraid Lucas would stop coming up with ways to make them give him money for something they've already seen and know like they back of their robotic hand.

Because lets face it, Lucas hasn't had a new idea since the freaking 70s. He just keeps going back to the Star Wars well, (correctly) banking on the fact that Star Wars fans will eat up anything he slaps the franchise label on. Because make no mistake, even though 3D movies as a whole been in decline with both public opinion and profits, a re-release of the Star Wars movies in the third dimension will bring oodles of money for Lucas to stuff in his Jar-Jar piggy bank.

Why am I being so bitter, you ask? Why be such a hater? Because I do actually LIKE Star Wars, and I am sick of watching countless revisions and additions mess up was actually pretty good on its own. Seriously, since Return of the Jedi was released, what has been added to the Star Wars cannon that actually provided anything new and worthwhile to the franchise? Not the special editions, which just shoe-horned in new special effects that really add nothing to the world that had already been established in the original versions (And having Greedo shoot first, which ruined that subtle little bit of characterization that helped establish Han Solo as a badass). Not the prequels, which at best do nothing but fill in a bunch of backstory that we didn't really need because we learned enough in the originals to put much of it together, and at worst completely tainted the saga by being atrociously written garbage that was nothing more than an excuse for Lucas to fill the screen with a bunch of flashy digital effects. Shadows of the Empire, while a cool N64 game, was just filler that failed to bring any real insight or new perspective to what we already knew happened. The Genndy Tartakovsky directed Clone War shorts were great fun in their own right, but were once again filler for the prequels, which are unnecessary anyway. The new CGI Clone Wars series is even worse, for having all the fun and stylishness of the Tartakovsky shorts sucked out and replaced with awful dialogue and stiff animation. Which brings us to The Force Unleashed, which in my opinion is the only cannon addition that brings anything to the table, by showing the formation of the Rebel Alliance and how the Empire was responsible for bringing it together. It's a small but interesting piece of information that directly effects our perception of the events of the original trilogy.

(That was a big ole chunk of text up there, and I apologize)

Releasing the movies (yet again) in 3D is just another example of Lucas milking the franchise for all it's worth without giving us anything meaningful in return. We've already seen these movies, why should we pay to see them again? Is being in 3D really going to change the experience that much? Will it really be worth it, especially considering ticket prices will likely continue to rise by the time the first one is released in 2012? For many, the answer will be yes, "because it's Star Wars, man!" And for those people, I'm sorry your lives suck so much as you can't wait to see The Phantom Menace on the big screen again, and pay even more so that the train wreck will be coming right at you. (Sidenote: Does anyone else think this might be what the Myans predicted for 2012?)

So no, I will not bother to go see any of the Star Wars movies in 3D. I still prefer the original versions of the original trilogy over the special editions, and I have a feeling I'm going to like watching the old fashioned 2D versions over the 3D ones as well. For those who feel compelled to keep handing Lucas money for the same freaking thing over and over again, have at it. But the next time one of you complains about a lack of originality in Hollywood, I'm going hold a mirror up to your face. And then hit you with it.

Really?: Pope Connects Atheisim and Nazis, Also He Was a Hitler Youth

Sometimes you see or read something that makes you stop in your tracks and ask "Really?", while tilting your head slightly and raising the pitch of your voice just a bit.

That happened to me today as I perused the ole' Google news section and came across this story, where Pope Benedict associated atheism and Nazis. The relevant quote:

"Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.

"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

I find this hilarious, because of all the prominent religious figures out there, Pope Benedict bears the unique distinction of having been a Hitler Youth. So in a sense, the Pope was a Nazi.

Now, I know that being in the Hitler Youth was mandatory of all German children, and it is wrong to use that association to paint the Pope as some kind of Nazi sympathizer. And that's kind of the point. To say that all atheists are evil and want to destroy the world simply because a few monsters in our history have not believed in a god is a faulty generalization. Let's not forget that it was Christians who used to burn women for being witches. By the Pope's logic, that means that all acts of violence against women are a result of there being too many Christians in the world.

There is also the problem that the Nazis weren't, strictly speaking, atheists. Much of Nazi ideology came out of Lutheranism, which you may recognize as a form of Christianity (the irony!). While some of the top leaders of the party may have been anti-religious, that's a far cry from saying that Nazis as a whole were atheists. More importantly, the notion of a "superior race" has a lot more in common with religious dogmas, whether it's the Jewish notion of being "The Chosen People" or the Christian idea that only those who believe in Jesus Christ and are born again will go to heaven. It doesn't take a big push for a group of people thinking they are morally superior to everyone else to begin thinking of themselves as a superior group (or race).

Mainly, I have a problem with these kind of comments because I find it personally insulting. I don't believe in a god, and I think Christianity is bunk. Yet I have managed not to commit atrocious acts of violence or abuse upon my fellow man. I also have numerous friends who are also atheists, and they are some of the most compassionate and caring people I know. The same cannot be said for those Catholic priests who either abused children or helped cover it up. I know this is somewhat of a cliche point to make now, but it irks me that a group of people who allow those kinds of things to happen have the gall to tell me I am morally askew. If you are going to persecute a whole group of people for their beliefs (or non-beliefs), you best make sure you are not caught in a double standard.

Mo' 3D, Mo' Problems

For at least the past year people have talked about the renewed interest in 3D films, and whether or not it is simply a fad or the future of filmmaking. While there is more evidence to suggest it is heading down the fad route than anything else, for the sake of discussion let's say that there is a future for 3D movies. That they will be with us for the long haul.

There are two schools of thought on how to best utilize the format. There are those who see it as an "enhancement," meaning it helps fully realize a world and makes you feel as if you are a part of it (Avatar, Up, How To Train Your Dragon), and those who see it as "spectacle," meaning "OMG there are things flying off the screen at me!" (The Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine 3D, Piranha 3D, any movie that has to include "3D" in its title) There has been some disagreement between these two camps, with Avatar director James Cameron proclaiming his dissaproval of gimmick-fare like Piranha 3D, and Pirahna Producer Mark Canton essentially calling Cameron a prentious prick in return.

Is Cameron being a bit dismissive? Sure. But I think he has a point. While overall Avatar is mediocre at best ("unobtanium"? really?) the 3D presentation of the world of Pandora was exhilarating. Not because there were beasties and what not flying at you off the screen, but rather because the added depth of perception, obviously worked over in great detail, made that world seem that much more real. Instead of watching images on a screen you felt as if the action was happening around you.

Movies like Pirahna 3D, go in the opposite direction. Instead of creating an overall sense of being in the moment, they are specifically calling attention to the fact there are 3D effects being used. It's less about how the 3D helps make the movie, story, or experience better, and more about the split-second adrenaline rush. It's the same kind of novelty gimmick that was used in the 80s, and the fad crashed and burned once the novelty wore off.

So is there a problem with this spectacle driven use of 3D? Potentially, yes, and it's already becoming evident. As that first link shows, ticket sales for 3D films have been in a fairly steady decline, starting even before Avatar became a phenomenon. As more and more movies utilize it, the experience itself become less novel, which forces the rest of the film (the story, acting, etc.) to hold the audience's interest. For movies like, say, Up, this isn't a problem because the 3D visual effects were never meant to take center stage. It was meant a way to enhance (there's that word again) the visuals without taking the focus away (at least not drastically) from the characters and story. A movie like Piranha 3D, however, is selling itself solely on the technology being used. The only reason to see the movie is because it is in 3D, not because it seems like a particularly interesting movie (how many people want to see Piranha 2D?) And it is here that I agree with Cameron, that these kind of movies "cheapen" the medium. Every time one of these gimmick movies come out, the novelty of 3D is lessened, and the interest in 3D goes down, making it harder for films that utilize 3D in more artistic or unique ways to find an audience.

And audiences are getting burned out on 3D. A lot of this has to do with films that "upgrade" to 3D in post production, which creates the most god-awful 3D effects you can imagine (Clash of the Titans, anyone?). But some of it also has to do with films like the upcoming Saw 3D, where the filmmakers use the technology to lazily inject some kind of intrigue into movies that aren't that interesting in their own right (just about any movie that sticks "3D" in it's title is guilty of this). It's a cheap, uncreative, and boring way to going about using the technology. Look at the 90s, after Cameron and Spielberg made their huge gains in CGI with T2:Judgment Day and Jurassic Park respectively. Both films were heralded for their advances in special effects, and what followed were a schlock of films that went all out on the CGI to try and attract audiences. But what they failed to realize was it wasn't just the special effects that made T2 or Jurassic Park good; it was the way they used them, as one of many filmmaking and story telling tools. The story and suspense behind Jurassic Park are why it holds up. Technologies change, and what is new and impressive today may not be tomorrow. But good stories can last forever.

So back to that first, central question: Is 3D the future of movies? Only if directors and producers learn some self-discipline. As I said above, 3D is a filmmaking TOOL, like CG, wipes, wide angle shots, close ups, and on and on and on. When used correctly, these tools can be very effective and emotionally powerful. But this doesn't seem to be the direction Hollywood is taking the medium. With the Saw and Jackass franchises offering up 3D entries by the end of this year, Hollywood seems to be embracing the shortsighted, quick cash in approach, which will most likely kill off the audience desire for 3D. This is a shame, because I do think there is a place for 3D films. Avatar used it beautifully, even if the story was lacking, and animation studios like Pixar seem to have a good grasp on how the technology can be used to create a panorama effect, bringing the audience into the imaginary world. But apparently Hollywood would rather use it to let Steve-O wag his genitals at us, but in 3D!