DVD Talk
Jurassic Park being rereleased in 3D 7/19/13 [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Jurassic Park being rereleased in 3D 7/19/13


Rypro 525
03-15-12, 11:10 PM
aka FUCK YOU UNIVERSAL! almost 20 years to the day too (damn i feel old)
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jurassicpark3d.htm

Tarantino
03-15-12, 11:13 PM
Sounds like a cool experience, even if just to see it in theaters again.

Pizza the Hutt
03-15-12, 11:14 PM
A shitty movie re-released 2 decades later. what's the problem?

trespoochies
03-15-12, 11:19 PM
Whatever. I think Rypro summed it up best, Fuck you Universal.

Guru Askew
03-15-12, 11:19 PM
A shitty movie re-released 2 decades later. what's the problem?

Uh, the problem is that Universal is going to go door-to-door confiscating everyone's VHS, laserdisc, DVD and Blu-ray copies of the film, erase everyone's memories of said film "Men in Black"-style and then force everyone at gunpoint to see the 3D conversion. Hence the outrage.

So yeah, Fuck You Universal. Seriously.

Charlie Goose
03-15-12, 11:24 PM
I really like JP. Not as much as I did when it was first released, because it was AWESOME then.

However, I've now seen it so many times that I can barely get interested in a 3D theatrical release. Especially since it's like $15 a ticket

Mike86
03-15-12, 11:39 PM
I don't really care about seeing this in 3D but if a regular rerelease happens at the same time I'd probably check it out.

Crocker Jarmen
03-15-12, 11:52 PM
Oh my God, that 20 years burns me. I hate being reminded so much time has passed.

Really had fun seeing this when it came it. Haven't watch it since maybe 96 or 97, so I think I would have fun going to the theater to see it again. I may even brave it in 3D.

92 was really Speilberg's year. I hope there's a 20th Anniversary re-release of Schindler's List too. In 3D. And a blooper reel during the end credits.

Kurtie Dee
03-16-12, 01:36 AM
I wonder what the costs are for 3D conversion and prints? Are they simply printing money to do this or is it a risk?

bluetoast
03-16-12, 01:40 AM
I'm in for the 2-D showings.

TomOpus
03-16-12, 03:06 AM
I think this was the first movie I saw multiple times at the theater. It was one of the few THX theaters in San Diego at that time. I remember how awesome the sound was and I couldn't wait to nab the laserdisc when it came out.

I would definitely see this again in the theater. Not sure about the 3D, though.

filmerp
03-16-12, 03:58 AM
I wonder what the costs are for 3D conversion and prints? Are they simply printing money to do this or is it a risk?

Post 3D conversion averages $100k/min.

whoopdido
03-16-12, 08:54 AM
Post 3D conversion averages $100k/min.

So this will cost $15M plus what...another $5M for marketing. Would it really do $20M plus? I love Jurassic Park but have literally seen it a hundred times. It's just background noise for me at this point. I hate 3D and really don't see the big deal about seeing older movies again in the theater, especially ones I've already seen numerous times.

raven56706
03-16-12, 09:39 AM
20 years??? i was that young when it came out?

Tarantino
03-16-12, 09:54 AM
So this will cost $15M plus what...another $5M for marketing. Would it really do $20M plus? I love Jurassic Park but have literally seen it a hundred times. It's just background noise for me at this point. I hate 3D and really don't see the big deal about seeing older movies again in the theater, especially ones I've already seen numerous times.

I'm guessing it's just as much for people who have had kids since it came out and want them to see it as it is for the 'grownups'.

Troy Stiffler
03-16-12, 10:07 AM
I have no problem with this. I was never crazy over the movie. But it's a solid candidate for 3D.

It's crazy how good the effect were, compared to the transition into so-so CG. Done now, everything would be rushed CG, which takes me out of the experience.

Anubis2005X
03-16-12, 10:09 AM
Blu-ray + projector = good enough for me.

GoldenJCJ
03-16-12, 12:22 PM
When I was 13 years old, seeing this in the theater was a fantastic experience! I'm with the others who said they're in for a 2D showing. I'd love to see this on the big screen again!

I couldn't care less about a 3D viewing. As cool as it could be I know a shitty cash grab post conversion job just won't appeal to me.

PopcornTreeCt
03-16-12, 01:14 PM
I'd probably see this in 3D. The same way I'd see BTTF in 3D... I'm a huge fan of the movie because of my childhood.

Kurtie Dee
03-16-12, 01:27 PM
So this will cost $15M plus what...another $5M for marketing. Would it really do $20M plus?

Sure, why not.

Shannon Nutt
03-16-12, 09:10 PM
Is this the first catalog Spielberg movie to get the 3D treatment? I wonder if he'll wind up regretting doing this...the way he regretted the special edition of E.T.

You know, I'd MUCH rather see Close Encounters in 3D.

Matthew Chmiel
03-17-12, 01:52 AM
Seriously. Who the fuck is running Universal right now?

While April looks solid with American Reunion and The Five-Year Engagement, both films cost relatively cheap to produce. American Reunion only cost $50 million (five-million less than American Wedding) whereas The Five-Year Engagement has a $13 million budget.

We then move into May with Battleship. A film based off a board game with a $200 million production budget before prints and advertising. Unless word of mouth is through the fucking roof when it starts its worldwide release next month, I don't see it being a cash cow for the studio unless it somehow magically clears more than $300 million worldwide. Doable, but I haven't seen an audience react positively to the trailer yet.

The only other three films they have out this summer constitute of Oliver Stone's Savages which happens to be another Taylor Kitsch vehicle (seriously?), Seth MacFarlane's first foray into live action (Ted) and a reboot of the Bourne franchise. The problem with both films? Budgets. God knows how much Universal let Stone run amok with, but Ted is a hard-R rated picture with a $65 million budget which is risky considering MacFarlane hasn't proven himself in the film arena. The Bourne Legacy has been confirmed to cost more than $100 million with rumors it could've <s>spiraled</s> costing close to $160 million. For starters, The Bourne Ultimatum only cost $110 million to produce and that was the third film in an already proven franchise with a returning cast and crew (ahem, Greengrass and Damon, ahem). How much is Edward Norton commanding for his role in the film?

Universal only has three more pictures to release to close out 2012 all which come out in November and December. 47 Ronin, a $175 million 3D samurai film starring Keanu Reeves. Les Miserables which hasn't even started production yet and comes out by Christmas, so expect a budget within nine figures. Last, but not least, Judd Apatow's This Is Forty which is rumored to costing under $40 million.

It's clear that Universal has no idea what the fuck they're doing and Taylor Kitsch might damage the studio more than he did at Disney this past week, but Apatow can budget a film.

Matthew Chmiel
03-17-12, 01:57 AM
Post 3D conversion averages $100k/min.
Wrong.

While Titanic's 3D post-conversion is the highest budgeted at $18 million ($102,000 a minute), others cost significantly less. Most 3D post-conversions, a studio spends anywhere from four-to-eight million which roughly comes out to about $50,000 a minute give-or-take.

antspawn
03-17-12, 02:24 AM
http://nooooooooooooooo.com/vader.jpg

Michael Corvin
03-17-12, 07:03 AM
I'm in for the 2-D showings.

This...

I'm guessing it's just as much for people who have had kids since it came out and want them to see it as it is for the 'grownups'.

....and this. My oldest daughter will be around 9 by the time this hits. I have the BDs but I'd much rather her see this bad boy the way it was intended to be seen.

lamphorn
03-17-12, 07:06 AM
Call me when they can do 3D movies without friggin dark glasses that make the screen look all muddy and crappy.

kd5
03-17-12, 08:14 AM
Seriously. Who the fuck is running Universal right now?

While April looks solid with American Reunion and The Five-Year Engagement, both films cost relatively cheap to produce. American Reunion only cost $50 million (five-million less than American Wedding) whereas The Five-Year Engagement has a $13 million budget.

We then move into May with Battleship. A film based off a board game with a $200 million production budget before prints and advertising. Unless word of mouth is through the fucking roof when it starts its worldwide release next month, I don't see it being a cash cow for the studio unless it somehow magically clears more than $300 million worldwide. Doable, but I haven't seen an audience react positively to the trailer yet.

The only other three films they have out this summer constitute of Oliver Stone's Savages which happens to be another Taylor Kitsch vehicle (seriously?), Seth MacFarlane's first foray into live action (Ted) and a reboot of the Bourne franchise. The problem with both films? Budgets. God knows how much Universal let Stone run amok with, but Ted is a hard-R rated picture with a $65 million budget which is risky considering MacFarlane hasn't proven himself in the film arena. The Bourne Legacy has been confirmed to cost more than $100 million with rumors it could've <s>spiraled</s> costing close to $160 million. For starters, The Bourne Ultimatum only cost $110 million to produce and that was the third film in an already proven franchise with a returning cast and crew (ahem, Greengrass and Damon, ahem). How much is Edward Norton commanding for his role in the film?

Universal only has three more pictures to release to close out 2012 all which come out in November and December. 47 Ronin, a $175 million 3D samurai film starring Keanu Reeves. Les Miserables which hasn't even started production yet and comes out by Christmas, so expect a budget within nine figures. Last, but not least, Judd Apatow's This Is Forty which is rumored to costing under $40 million.

It's clear that Universal has no idea what the fuck they're doing and Taylor Kitsch might damage the studio more than he did at Disney this past week, but Apatow can budget a film.


Universal is certainly not endearing themselves to me with this line up, hope some of the other studios have better projects going.

As far as Jurrasic Park goes, love the movies, own all 3 CE DVDs, I couldn't care less about JP1 in 3D, won't be wasting my $$$ on it at the theater, especially with the TV setup I have. -kd5-

trespoochies
03-17-12, 10:18 AM
This...



....and this. My oldest daughter will be around 9 by the time this hits. I have the BDs but I'd much rather her see this bad boy the way it was intended to be seen.

Same thing with me and my daughter. She'll also be 9, so I'll just hold off showing it to her until the theatrical re-release, the 2D one that is.

Mr. Cinema
03-17-12, 11:18 AM
Seriously. Who the fuck is running Universal right now?

I thought they cleaned house after Evan Almighty. And then again after The Wolf Man. Probably will again after this year.

Pizza the Hutt
03-17-12, 03:03 PM
Raiders in 3D would be cool, especially with all the ghosts floating around at the end, pieces of Belloq's face flying at you, etc.

Matthew Chmiel
03-17-12, 08:25 PM
I thought they cleaned house after Evan Almighty. And then again after The Wolf Man. Probably will again after this year.
Ron Meyer is still President of Universal Studios and has been for quite some time.

I would imagine if Battleship and a good chunk of their 2012 lineup flop, (more) heads will roll when Comcast steps in.

I also forgot Universal has Snow White and the Huntsman coming out in June. While moderately priced compared to their 2012 lineup (only $70 million), I don't know how well it's going to do considering Relativity beat them to the punch with Mirror Mirror and I don't know of any heterosexual males that think Kristen Stewart is attractive.

Oh, and the other films her Twilight co-stars have made (like Abduction and Remember Me) have all been box office flops.

Matthew Chmiel
11-13-12, 03:05 PM
I'm surprised there's been no update since the release of the trailer:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gz6jkQKuylo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I saw the trailer in IMAX with Skyfall yesterday... and holy shit, did it look bad. Not the trailer that obviously sucks, but the picture quality. It looked as if someone just projected the Blu-ray onto the IMAX screen and smeared the entire thing with DNR in the process.

Didn't we learn from Titanic that the only way to make a great 3D post-conversion for an older flick is to restore the film first?

islandclaws
11-13-12, 03:55 PM
I only got The Hobbit trailer with Skyfall, so I wasn't able to see it on the big screen. I did watch the re-release trailer on my PC at work, and all it did was make me interested (albeit mildly) to see this in 2-D when it's released.

Solid Snake
11-13-12, 04:25 PM
JP was restored for the BD, no?

candyrocket786
11-13-12, 04:34 PM
I wonder if we'll get a nice lenticular poster for this release similar to the one displayed during the original release of The Lost World.


http://i.ebayimg.com/t/SUPER-RARE-JURASSIC-PARK-THE-LOST-WORLD-LENTICULAR-3D-27-X40-US-ONE-SHEET-/00/s/NjY2WDQ1MA==/$T2eC16dHJHEE9ny2srK!BQKFBlEIg!~~60_3.JPG

GoldenJCJ
11-13-12, 04:46 PM
^ I remember the VHS release of The Lost World had that lenticular cover too.

Mr. Cinema
11-13-12, 05:15 PM
JP was restored for the BD, no?
I don't think it was. I think we assumed it would be, but I believe it was only "remastered" and from an older master. The JP films can definitely look better. Maybe we'll get at least a better version of the first one after the 3D version hits theaters.

bluetoast
11-13-12, 05:34 PM
^ I remember the VHS release of The Lost World had that lenticular cover too.

Yup...still have mine.

WeylandYutani
11-13-12, 05:45 PM
3D is not going to make this decent but still disappointing film any better.

Dr. Alan Grant is still going to be fucking dull as dirt.

WeylandYutani
11-13-12, 05:52 PM
JP was restored for the BD, no?


No. Fuck no. Read any one of the reviews that came out upon its BD release.

whotony
11-15-12, 12:46 AM
I'm surprised there's been no update since the release of the trailer:

I saw the trailer in IMAX with Skyfall yesterday... and holy shit, did it look bad. Not the trailer that obviously sucks, but the picture quality. It looked as if someone just projected the Blu-ray onto the IMAX screen and smeared the entire thing with DNR in the process.

Didn't we learn from Titanic that the only way to make a great 3D post-conversion for an older flick is to restore the film first?

I saw it that way too. A first I thought this was a preview for a JP movie then it wasn't. Looked pretty bad like Matthew mentioned.

Michael Corvin
11-15-12, 08:12 AM
I find it odd that ET, Jaws and Raiders saw restoration work but JP which was just as successful as those didn't. Hopefully they're working on it for this 3D release.

RocShemp
11-15-12, 08:20 AM
Are we sure JP wasn't restored? I recall all the press leading up to its release announcing that it was restored and remastered.

mdc3000
11-15-12, 09:43 AM
Definitely wasn't restored. Of course it doesn't help that the special effects were output at a lower resolution than we use today for blu-ray - which means almost all shots of Dinos look pretty fuzzy, especially noticeable in the IMAX version of this preview.

Matthew Chmiel
11-15-12, 12:57 PM
Definitely wasn't restored. Of course it doesn't help that the special effects were output at a lower resolution than we use today for blu-ray - which means almost all shots of Dinos look pretty fuzzy, especially noticeable in the IMAX version of this preview.
However, the non-SFX shots would still look a lot better if Universal did a 4K restoration a la E.T. and Jaws... and that would consist of almost a majority of the film.

I'm still confused why Universal would give this an IMAX 3D release if they're not properly restoring the film. I'm guessing it'll be a digital-only IMAX release if that's the case, but still disappointing nonetheless that Universal can't shell out the money for a proper restoration first. Titanic's restoration and 3D post-conversion only cost $18 million... and it looked fantastic and ended up doing $340 million worldwide. Easily one of the best IMAX 3D releases I've seen up to this point.

Alan Smithee
11-15-12, 04:08 PM
Enough with the conversions! Shoot more new movies in REAL 3D!

islandclaws
11-15-12, 04:11 PM
Does anyone know the cost of shooting 3D vs. converting?