Star Wars II and III 3D releases cancelled

[Mach5]

BillJ wrote:

---

Seems like they're on Spike TV about every three weeks here in the States.

Perhaps Julie Bowen doesn't have basic cable.

[The Wormhole]

Ovation wrote:

---

How old is the kid? If the kid is under 10, like my son, then I might not show the movies to him either (not for fear he would like something I don't--he already has several of those in terms of movies, but because it is my job as a parent to decide when my child will watch something and I don't feel my son is ready for them. Of course, I won't let him watch the originals yet, either--so I am consistent in my "censorship").

You won't let a kid under 10 watch any Star Wars film? That's odd, why? What is wrong with Star Wars that you feel someone under 10 can't watch it?

Granted, I was ten when I first saw the movies, but that's only because that's when I first expressed an interest in them. If I had earlier, I doubt my parents would have cared. Hell, I started watching Star Trek when I was 8, and my mother got me The Undiscovered Country for my ninth birthday.

[Ovation]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

You won't let a kid under 10 watch any Star Wars film? That's odd, why? What is wrong with Star Wars that you feel someone under 10 can't watch it?

Correction. I won't let my under 10 kid watch any Star Wars films yet. I have no issues with parents deciding differently for their children. In fact, it is specifically my son, rather than both my children (my daughter, who is now 11, would not have been bothered by Stars Wars movies at all when she was 7--my son's age). He is prone to vivid dreams/nightmares after watching things like Star Wars movies, so I'd rather he'd wait a bit longer. My daughter hasn't gotten around to it yet because I'd like to do it with both of them together.

Granted, I was ten when I first saw the movies, but that's only because that's when I first expressed an interest in them. If I had earlier, I doubt my parents would have cared. Hell, I started watching Star Trek when I was 8, and my mother got me The Undiscovered Country for my ninth birthday.

I started watching Star Trek when I was 7. Devil in the Dark was the first episode I ever saw. I loved it and watched the rest of TOS as quickly as I could (which, back in the days of once a week syndication where I lived, took a bit longer than it would today). I recently introduced TOS to my children. I did NOT select Devil in the Dark because I knew some of it would disturb my son. I chose the Tribbles instead.

I don't think it will take too much longer before my son is fine with things like any Trek or Wars movie/episode. But he's not quite there yet. That's why I tend to support a parent's decision to withhold various forms of entertainment until they deem it appropriate for their children, especially with younger children. I also believe that a parent should be free to watch a Quentin Tarentino movie with their 12 year old, IF they have a reasonably grounded belief that the 12 year old is mature enough to do so. Children, like the rest of humanity, are not cookie-cutter replicas of each other. Each has an individual growth and maturity rate and it behooves parents to pay attention to that.

Now, as for cancelling the 3-D Star Wars movies (or postponing them), I hope it's because they want to add some well-needed lens flares from the master. Oh yeah, and to make sure to put 0s in all the appropriate places (0C3PO, 0R2D2 and the like )

[The Wormhole]

Ovation wrote:

---

Correction. I won't let my under 10 kid watch any Star Wars films yet. I have no issues with parents deciding differently for their children. In fact, it is specifically my son, rather than both my children (my daughter, who is now 11, would not have been bothered by Stars Wars movies at all when she was 7--my son's age). He is prone to vivid dreams/nightmares after watching things like Star Wars movies, so I'd rather he'd wait a bit longer. My daughter hasn't gotten around to it yet because I'd like to do it with both of them together.

Okay, something like that is understandable. Although watching Star Trek as a child actually helped me get over my sleep anxieties.

Now, as for cancelling the 3-D Star Wars movies (or postponing them), I hope it's because they want to add some well-needed lens flares from the master. Oh yeah, and to make sure to put 0s in all the appropriate places (0C3PO, 0R2D2 and the like )

That would be a crime greater than Greedo shooting first.

[Ovation]

Which, the lens flares or the 0s?

[The Wormhole]

Both, though the zeroes would upset me more.

[OdoWanKenobi]

When I have kids some day, I fully intend to show them the OT as soon as I think they're old enough. I won't willingly show them the prequels. If they ask about the PT, I won't stop them from watching it. I will however, warn them that it's not quite as good.

[CaptJimboJones]

My experience as a parent is that kids tend to adore TPM because the hero is a kid. They can overlook (or not notice) the issues that the rest of us see because they love pretty much any story in which a kid is plucked from his humdrum existence and becomes a hero. I realize that ANH followed this formula as well, but in TPM the hero is actually a little child.

And my 7-year-old son thinks JarJar is fricking hilarious.

[cooleddie74]

I have a friend and his wife who were disappointed that the two other prequels' 3-D releases were canned because they have two kids who never got to see either one in the theaters when they were brand new, but as far as I'm concerned I'm not terribly concerned one way or the other.

I went to see Episode I in 3-D and enjoyed it but the remastered film's somewhat disappointing box office and all the reams and warehouses full of tie-in toys and merchandise that languished unsold throughout 2012 told me that Fox and Lucasfilm might possibly delay the other prequels or even change their minds. I liked TPM in 3-D but at the end of the day it was still the same movie, just with a somewhat overhyped visual twist that required paying considerably more to see it in 2012 than you did back in 1999.

I have to say I'm a lot more miffed that we're probably not going to see the Original Trilogy in 3-D and those were the films in the Saga I was stoked at seeing in a remastered format, but at the end of the day those are movies I've seen umpteen million times since I was a very small kid....there wouldn't have been anything new in them.

[Nightowl1701]

Just as well. They would've had to practically tear AOTC apart and rebuild it from the raw footage up (under the supervision of someone - ANYONE - other than Lucas) just to get me remotely interested.

[Frontier]

Man, I was looking forward to when they got the the original trilogy's re-release. Damn! You mean to tell me I sat through Episode 1 again for NOTHING? Ugh!

[Set Harth]

Clearly, if you paid 3D prices to see it again, you must have a deep and abiding love for Episode I, so it's all good.

[cooleddie74]

It's funny....though the chances for seeing the Original Trilogy in widescreen 3-D are now pretty much tanked there are still a few fans online who continue to believe that 2014 might still be the year of the classic films in 3-D.

"Sure, they cancelled the other two prequels, but how many people want to see those in 3-D compared to the original films? Forget Clones and Sith....20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm know the real money's to be made with the Luke, Han and Leia movies!"

Frankly, who knows anymore. If I had to take a guess I'd say they won't be released in 3-D but the Fox and Lucasfilm people change things at the drop of a hat....just look at the prequel plans that were pretty much a sure thing until recently.

[TREK_GOD_1]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Yeah but the prequels still beat almost any movie ever made at the box office. Regardless if people on the internet were annoyed that Jar Jar wasn't funny.

The Prequels were not the first movies on anybody's favorites list. For example, in 2002, Attack of the Clones--with a built in franchise--still fell short of Spider-Man's performance. One can argue that Spider-Man was new, but the negative opinion of The Phantom Menace set Attack up to recieve less than enthusiastic attention compared to Raimi's comic adaptation.

[cooleddie74]

That is true. Attack of the Clones remains the only one of the six existing Saga episodes that wasn't the highest grossing film the year it was released. It finished a very close third for 2002 (behind Spider-Man and the second LotR movie) and broke the $300 million mark domestically, but that's a far cry from how the five other films performed compared to their competition.