"Avatar: The Way of Water" has finally been dethroned from the box office by not just M. Night Shyamalan's "Knock at the Cabin" but by surprise hit "80 for Brady," landing number 3 at the box office. As of this writing, the film is the third highest-grossing film of all time. What's more, if 3D fans want to revisit the film in 3D they still have plenty of screens to go to. It seems weird that this blog was quiet during all this "Avatar: The Way of Water" stuff (I also forgot to do my yearly 3D nominations list, so that will have to be done later), but I decided that this holiday season I needed to spend time for myself and my family, and so this blog got put on the sidelines (and on an additional note, I wrote this article a few weeks ago and am doing a second draft now so...life).
Now that the dust has settled, has "Avatar: The Way of Water" moved the 3D needle very much? What are some of the important stats that it hit and can 3D make a comeback as a result? Here are some of the highlights:
Roughly 67% of "Avatar: The Way of Water" tickets sold during the first weekend were for 3D and premium screens.
For the first three weeks no premium screens showed the movie in 2D (and few switched to 2D after those three weeks were up).
Five weeks into the movies run regular RealD 3D screenings were readily available.
Custom-made 3D trailers for future Marvel and Pixar movies were prepared in anticipation of the success of "Avatar: The Way of Water," planting seeds in the minds of moviegoers that there is more than one worthwhile 3D experience coming to theaters.
Despite most of the 3D screens going to "Avatar: The Way of Water," "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish" got some 3D love at the box office, with roughly 17% of the first two weeks' ticket sales going to 3D showings (up by the average 9%-12%).
These are all notable wins for the 3D format. Does this mean 3D is back in a big way? Not exactly, but it's a start. Notably, Disney was able to capitalize on the renewed interest in the format in a couple of big ways. As mentioned before, previews for "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantimanium" stressed that the preferred way to view the movie was in 3D (even the 2D commercials had characters literally jumping over the black bars). For that matter, they are pushing the 3D screenings in some of their social media advertising:
This means Disney is hoping to try and condition people to select the more expensive 3D tickets going forward. What's more, a 4K re-release of Cameron's own "Titanic" provided a good haul for the studio, showing that people were still willing to see 3D movies IF the 3D experience was worth paying for! With all these movies doing better in 3D, we're starting to see more 3D screenings being given to upcoming films like "The Super Mario Brothers Movie" and "Elementals!" The commercials are starting to advertise the 3D format once again. While there is no news on new 3D TV's being released, we do know that "Avatar: The Way of Water" and "Titanic" WILL be getting 4K releases this year (and The Digital Bits editor Bill Hunt has reason to believe we'll have 3D options available)!
While it is still wishful thinking at the moment, there is still a part of me that believes some TV manufacturer will have to have a new 4K 3D TV in the pipeline to please all of the new 'Avatar' fans who want to watch one of the latest highest grossing films of all time as close to the theatrical release as possible. Right now, I'll consider it a win that "Avatar: The Way of Water" has re-opened the door to audiences being receptive to 3D movies once again. Hopefully Hollywood won't blow it again with terrible post-conversion jobs.
James Cameron is having a busy year. Not only will "Avatar" be re-released in a week in IMAX 3D (in 48 FPS no less), but in December the long-awaited sequel - "Avatar: The Way of Water" - will finally be released in theaters (where I personally predict it will be a MAJOR hit)! As such, he's making the press rounds to promote his new projects. While he was doing the rounds, he was asked about 3D TVs and why they failed. He answered:
I know why all that failed because there was — what they did was they jumped into 3D trying to cash in the boom at theaters and treat it as a feature," he explained. "So, they did 3D, but they did it with glasses that needed to be recharged and all that. Whereas just over the horizon was glasses-free, large flat screen TVs which actually look pretty good. ... Not everybody is a film geek like I am where you sit down you put the glasses on by yourself and you just watch a whole movie, which is more what the theatrical experience is. So, it kind of got out of step.
What's more, Cameron revealed a surprising opinion on whether or not he wants 3D TVs to return to the living rooms.
I think it could, but I can't say because the home viewing experience is fundamentally different than the theatrical experience. I'm perfectly happy if the only place you can really get it is in a movie theater because it speaks to that specialness of the cinematic experience, which is obviously what the Avatar re-release is in the first place.
He then continued to talk about how annoyed he is that kids will binge four- or five-hour long TV episodes in a row but not watch a three-hour movie...but honestly, we're not going to get into that one. We're also going to gloss over his opinions on why he thinks 3D TV failed. While I agree that the types of glasses and quality of screens played a big role in the demise, that is a loaded question that we have delved into multiple times on this site (and will continue to do so in the future).
What stood out to me (and what may stand out to you) is that Cameron is ok with 3D not coming back to the living room. He likes the idea that the best way to experience his movies is on a big screen. While I'm certain the knee-jerk reaction is to rail against him, keep in mind that this is not a new way of thinking for filmmakers. Back in the day, many filmmakers railed against the idea of their movies playing on television (an airing of the Best Picture-winner "Bridge on the River Kwai" was deemed 'Black Friday' by many in Hollywood back in the day). For that matter, while we may be enjoying the 40th-anniversary IMAX re-release of "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial," if Steven Spielberg had his way seeing the movie in theaters would be the only way to watch the film.
Yep, at one point Spielberg refused to allow 'E.T.' to be released on the newly successful VHS format, and he only wanted it to be seen in theaters. Eventually, he came off this source and 'E.T.' would go on to become one of the best-selling VHS tapes of all time, but it goes to show that filmmakers will ALWAYS want their films seen in theaters rather than at home! Will Cameron get his wish? I have no idea. There has been no movement on bringing 3D TVs back into the living rooms, so for the time being this may very well happen. I still believe that once "Avatar: The Way of Water" becomes the huge success I believe it will be, some TV manufacturers will gladly make a deal with him to make a great 3D TV so long as they have exclusive rights to the movie on their set (kind of like what happened with the original "Avatar").
Because money talks and money walks, and if there is money to be made in 3D someone will jump on it. It will help that there is more 3D content available now than twelve years ago. What's more, it would actually take less bandwidth to stream a 3D film than it does a 4K film, so if a TV manufacturer did make a TV there would be new content most of these streaming services could offer to take advantage of that audience (VUDU has a leg up on the competition in this case). Keep in mind that this is all me dreaming. Whether "Avatar: The Way of Water" is a big enough success to bring 3D TVs back is likely a pipe dream. But hey, you may say I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one!
Labels:
IMAX,
realD 3D
Posted by
Kevin T. Rodriguez
Thursday, August 18, 2022
A week ago, IMAX re-released Steven Spielberg's classic film "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" in cinemas. I took my niece and nephews to their first IMAX movie, and we all loved it. On the way out the kids noticed that IMAX will be re-releasing another Spielberg classic: "JAWS." The poster advertised the following:
Coming to IMAX and RealD 3D
While the poster does advertise two formats, it didn't specify if any of the 3D screenings would go to IMAX. I sent e-mails that went unanswered, but we are starting to get showtimes for this re-release and the answer to that appears to be...no, the IMAX screenings will not be in 3D. For that matter, despite advance tickets going on sale for most of my theaters, none of the screenings appear to be for the RealD 3D version. I have no doubt a 3D version was made, but it is odd that we are so close to the release and someone like me - that is, someone who lives in Los Angeles and can see whatever movie he wants to see for the most part - doesn't appear to have access to any 3D showings of the movie.
I'll keep an eye out to see if theaters even book the RealD 3D version, but I'm going to be upfront with you: I already have got my tickets for the IMAX 2D showing. No offense to fans of 3D, but there's a part of me that hopes we never see this version. This series already has a history of dipping its fin in the world of 3D and, well..it didn't turn out so good. Factor in the reality that the vast majority of 3D re-releases from old movies have not turned out to be good, I'm going to go on a limb and saw that seeing this one in IMAX 2D is going to be the way to go. For that matter, we've been watching this movie in 2D for more than three decades, so why change course now, right?! Anyway, there's my little update on "JAWS" upcoming re-release. Now I need to lie down and finish recovering from Covid-19.
Labels:
despicable me,
IMAX
Posted by
Kevin T. Rodriguez
Monday, June 13, 2022
Marvel's upcoming "Thor: Love and Thunder" will be receiving an IMAX 3D release along with other premium 3D screenings. These include (but may not be limited to): 4DX, PRIME 3D, and XD 3D. Right now, the formats that are up in the air are Dolby Cinema 3D (which hasn't shown a 3D movie in YEARS) and RPX. Most showtimes in my area are in the mid-to-late afternoon, so theaters must feel that it's worth their time to start releasing big-budget Hollywood movies in 3D again, so seeing the latest Marvel movie get approved for 3D screenings on premium formats isn't too surprising. One area where 3D fans may find themselves a little more disappointed is the fact that while those live-action PG-13 movies are getting 3D screenings, family films seem to not be getting the same treatment. Illuminations "Minions: The Rise of Gru" and Pixar's first theatrical film in years "Lightyear" don't appear to be getting any premium 3D screenings.
Sure, if you want to see these movies in 3D you will have the opportunity to on standard screens, but so far, I haven't seen any commitment for bigger-than-usual screens. This doesn't and does make sense at the same time. On the one hand, it doesn't make sense because kids love 3D movies. Go to any 3D movie with kids and you'll hear tons of "wows" and "cool" throughout the film. On the other hand, 3D movies are more expensive. Yeah, IMAX 3D is only one dollar more than IMAX, but parents tend to be very budget-conscious when it comes to family outings at the movies. Throw in high gas prices and record inflation, and even an extra $4 can seem like an extra $40 to most families. And be honest with yourself: Would YOU pay extra to take your kids to see "Minions: The Rise of Gru?!" I'm not looking forward to paying $3 to see it for myself.
This hurts a little bit more with "Lightyear" though. While Pixar's track record with 3D has been fairly shaky, "Lightyear" looks like it having the 3D effects will greatly benefit the film. Unfortunately, a real choice will have to be made, because it is also the first animated film to have scenes optimized exclusively for IMAX, which is a huge deal in and of itself. Although I know some of my readers take a "no 3D, no ticket" stance (and it's perfectly fine if you do), most movie fans will want to see this IMAX just for this fact alone. It's enough of a big deal that our 'IMAX vs. RealD 3D' feature will be returning for this movie (and maybe for 'Minions' as well). In the meantime, I consider it a good thing that at least 3D screenings for big-budget blockbusters are returning to premium screens like IMAX and XD!
Either movie theaters are preparing people for another 3D wave that's anticipated with the upcoming "Avatar: The Way of Water" or "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" did much better business with 3D screenings than anticipated (maybe a bit of both), but "Jurassic World: Dominion" is getting the biggest 3D release I've personally seen in years! I was pretty happy to see 3D make a comeback with "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness," but it was pretty obvious that the waters were being tested with that one. The RealD 3D screens were the smallest screens in the theaters and most IMAX were only dedicating one showtime a day to the 3D version. Despite the fact that Kevin Feige clearly stated that the 3D version was the way to view it, theaters approached the release with caution. While this isn't the first 3D movie we've gotten since the world re-opened after the pandemic (I saw "Black Widow" in 4DX 3D and "Eternals" in PRIME 3D) it was the first movie to get a serious push (complete with a dedicated 3D poster and everything).
That push must have paid off because "Jurassic World: Dominion" is getting an even bigger push. The film will not only be screening in IMAX 3D, but some of those showtimes will be in prime slots. On the opening Thursday preview, one of my AMC's is showing the IMAX 3D version at 8:00pm while the standard IMAX 2D screening is getting the less desirable 11:20pm timeslot. What's more, AMC appears to be dedicating most (if not all) of their PRIME screens to having the film in 3D. It's the first time I've seen Cinemark (sans Doctor Strange of course) displayed in XD 3D. What's more, both Cinemark AND Regal are dedicating multiple screens to projecting the film in 3D! And yes: 4DX screenings will also be in 3D (I feel this should be an automatic, but this is the world we live in). If you want to see "Jurassic World: Dominion" in 3D there is no excuse not to.
Course, if no one buys tickets to this in 3D things can change. "Minions: The Rise of Gru" has at least some regular 3D screenings planned, but IMAX and AMC haven't made any choices about their premium screens having 3D showings. "Lightyear" is the next major 3D movie coming out, and if "Jurassic World: Dominion" does particularly well we may see that movie in IMAC 3D and PRIME 3D as well! Either way, 3D fans have a rare opportunity to not only see "Jurassic World: Dominion" in premium 3D formats, but also at times that are reasonable. If you want to see the trend continue, you've got to voice your support by buying a ticket or two to these screenings.
Labels:
Avatar,
IMAX,
marvel
Posted by
Kevin T. Rodriguez
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
So, one of the things we normally do on this site is a '2D vs 3D' column. While a fair amount of my viewers will choose to see movies in 3D regardless of the 'pop' they produce, I personally know that 3D isn't a cheap option. Despite being around for more than ten years, movie theaters are still up charging for the experience, which at $4 a ticket could be an additional $12 for a family of four. When you add that $12 on top of the average $56 it costs for most families of four to see the movie...well, you've got a $68 day out for the family (not including popcorn and drinks). Now you take inflation into account, and I think if we want 3D to be more adapted, we should be fair and honest about what 3D movies are worth paying more for and which ones are essentially using 3D as an excuse to upcharge. That's why we have this long running feature. However, there is no purpose in writing that article this time around because there is one undeniable truth this time around:
"Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" is the best 3D experience in almost five years, and you absolutely should pay extra to see it in this format if you are at all interested in seeing this!
I thought I would be a little less blunt about saying that, but really, I see no need to; "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" uses 3D so brilliantly, so effortlessly, that it makes you made more 3D films aren't like this. I'm not saying that all 3D movies need to feature multiverses (honestly, with three of these movies in less than a year...I'm sort of over the idea), but they do need to have brilliant camera angles, long shots that allow you to take in your surroundings, and the effect needs to need to make the action more intense and immersive. Everything great about 3D that I swear on this blog year after year is represented in this movie, and even if it has to be a regular 3D screening (as opposed to the EXCELLENT IMAX 3D screenings) it's something WELL worth paying extra money for!
But hey, don't take my word for it: "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" producer (and head figure at Marvel Studios) Kevin Feige has claimed that this is Marvel's best use of 3D in a long time (depending on what you consider a Marvel movie, this is likely either "Ant-Man & the Wasp" or "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse")! Straight from the horse's mouth:
But I will say, Sam has made this movie to be experienced on as big a screen as possible, and it’s even the first one in a long time that 3D was really taken into account, too, because the first Doctor Strange film I think was out best film ever in 3D, and this one now will be right alongside that.
So that settles that: "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" is a must-see 3D experience! That's great news! Slightly better news is that the 3D screenings will likely stick around for a second week because the teaser for "Avatar: The Way of Water" plays before this movie, and word-of-mouth is growing that it's worth seeing the 3D version of "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" JUST to see how excellent that teaser looks! I may write about the teaser at a later date (I actually have a lot to say about it), however, should that post not come until 3D showings of Doctor Strange are largely over, I will concur that it is another reason to shell out an extra few bucks to see this movie in 3D. Ultimately though, how much do I recommend it?
Well, let's say this: I didn't like "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" much as a movie, but I'll be seeing it again to experience the 3D.
A few weeks ago, when I happily reported that "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" would be the first move in more than two years to get some IMAX 3D releases, I secretly wondered if the upcoming 'Avatar 2' had something to do with it. I didn't publicly speculate, but now that my suspicions have been confirmed I wish I had. Right now, we're in the middle of Cinema Con. While I am not attending (and thus can only do secondhand reporting) James Cameron's world of 'Avatar' got a lot of attention. First of all, the original "Avatar" (you know, the movie everyone hates that got nominated for Best Picture anyway) will be getting a remastered re-release this September. The reason is because it has been more than a decade since the film was seen in theaters, and Disney (the studio who now owns 'Avatar') wants there to be a refresher before "Avatar: The Way of Water" is released on December 16th.
Yes, 'Avatar 2' has a title AND a release date! Been a long time coming! At Cinema Con a teaser trailer was shown to attendees. 3D glasses were handed out, as Cameron is going to be making it clear that 3D is THE way to see this! According to Deadline:
Avatar 2 takes place in and around the ocean. Sully (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri (Saldana) have children. “Wherever we go,” says Sully, “this family is our fortress.” The sequel looks even more jaw dropping in its deep-blue visuals than the 2009 film. All new creatures: We see the Na’vi on flying fish bird creatures, communing with a whale, and yet somehow divided despite their affinity with nature: The alien people are split, battling against each other in a guns vs. arrows fight. It’s truly a whole new world upping the stakes of the previous 3x Oscar winning film.
And yes, this teaser WILL premier before "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness!"
This certainly makes sense why IMAX has dedicated several showtimes to 3D showings of the latest Marvel offering. Not only does this movie seem like it is going to be a dream in 3D, but if 'Avatar' fans really want to see this teaser the way it is supposed to be seen, it's going to be in an IMAX 3D screen! Of course, 3D has taken a big enough beating that most IMAX's will only have one 3D screening (two at most). The good news is most screenings are at 4:30pm or some similar times (MUCH better than the 11:15am and 10:30pm showings I had to attend for "Avengers: Endgame" and "Spider-Man: No Way Home" if I wanted to experience those in the third dimension).
I also suspect that this is a test to see if there is an appetite for 3D movies again. I have no doubt that "Avatar: The Way of Water" will only be seen in IMAX 3D when it is released. Cameron is a powerful man and he will insist that 3D is the way to view this movie. If the newest Doctor Strange overperforms, it may convince IMAX to dedicate more 3D showings to movies in-between. Could the success of "Avatar: The Way of Water" inspire a resurgence in 3D?
Well...I have thoughts on that, and I have a LOT to say! So, keep this blog bookmarked; there is suddenly a LOT we have to talk about!
Although I promised I wouldn't write too many blog posts like this anymore, I got enough e-mails from people yesterday asking what happened to the IMAX 3D version of "Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore," and why I failed to mention that as the first IMAX 3D release in more than two years in my blog post yesterday (this morning...?). Well, I didn't mention it because there is no IMAX 3D version...or any 3D version of this movie! I can't even find evidence of a 3D release in China. It seems that for whatever reason, "Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore" will be forgoing a 3D release altogether. No, I don't know why this is the case, but then, Harry Potter movies have not been very consistent when it comes to being presented in 3D. For the first four movies Harry Potter was a strictly 2D affair. "Avatar" hadn't come out yet and 3D was largely limited to IMAX films.
With "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" the films dipped their toe into 3D effects by having the climax be presented in 3D exclusively at IMAX locations. "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" continued that format by having the opening sequence in IMAX 3D (while normal theaters got the film fully in 2D). These 3D sequences were praised by fans and critics alike, and once James Cameron made 3D cool again for theaters, Warner Bros. committed to ending the series in 3D. That said, while "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1" was advertised as being in 3D, the film makers decided that the 3D wasn't of the quality they wanted it to be. Not wanting to be responsible for another "Clash of Titans," 'Deathly Hallows - Part 1' was released in 2D only (it would eventually get a BluRay 3D releases, where the results were praised as...fine).
Harry Potter finally made the leap to full 3D everywhere with "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2," and the movies have been in 3D ever since. It has become so expected for Harry Potter to be in 3D that a Chinese re-release...
...presented audiences with a brand-new IMAX 3D remaster. Oh, and to get ahead so that I don't have to write another post on this: No, I am not aware of this version being available to purchase on BluRay 3D (but if I'm wrong please point me in the right direction). Aside from this, the first two 'Fantastic Beasts' movies were also released in 3D (though they were released at a time when IMAX was starting to phase out 3D showings).
This means that Harry Potter movies have been released either partly or fully in 3D since 2007!
For reasons I am not clear on, a fifteen YEAR tradition has come to an end! Why? I have no idea. I suppose Warner Bros. must have felt on some level a 3D conversion wasn't worth the money. If there is a fourth 'Fantastic Beasts' movie it will likely also be 2D only. I know this is going to be a bit of a disappointment, but what are you going to do at this point? If you want to see it you'll just have to see it in the 2D format or not at all. Course, this DOES mean you don't have to choose between IMAX/Dolby Cinema or a standard 3D screen, so that's kind of nice! But, yeah, it appears there will be no more 3D Harry Potter projects in the near future. It was fun while it lasted (even if it seems odd to end the tradition now).
Even though I am getting a bit burnt out on the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Netflix's "The Power of the Dog" made for a much more captivating cinema experience than "Black Widow" for my money), I have been very open that not only was "Doctor Strange" one of the more creative endeavors of the MCU, but it is also one of the shining examples of just how good 3D can be when used properly! From my perspective if you haven't seen "Doctor Strange" in 3D...you technically haven't seen it. While I can't say "Doctor Strange In The Multiverse of Madness" is something I'm salivating at the mouth to see (I'm more excited about "The Bad Guys" if I'm being completely honest), there was a moment when I felt that an IMAX 3D experience would raise my excitement level considerably if it was half the experience that the last film was! In that circumstance - having remembered how great the experience was the first time around - I might be able to muster up some excitement to see the sequel.
If only there was a possibility of that becoming a reality...but alas, we are living in a post-pandemic life, and movies themselves are on life support (never mind 3D movies). Anyway, I forgot the tickets went on sale a few days ago, so I went to AMC to get my tickets and...
...well, the first thing that stood out was that there were two separate sections for IMAX. Take a closer look at that sole showtime though and you can see "IMAX with Laser 3D" in small print! Now, first of all, I do need to express SOME disappointment that AMC isn't making this clear that this is an IMAX 3D showing with a bold logo. They USED to do this...but having not used the logo in a long time, maybe it got misplaced on their hard drive?! I don't know, they had a pretty hectic two years in case you didn't know. Ignoring that though, the key thing here is that IMAX is showing their first movie in 3D in over two years!!! I mean, I can't even remember the last time I saw an IMAX 3D movie?! It must have been...
...oh...yeah, THAT movie! Didn't a John Campea episode inspire a blog post here...never mind, getting off track. Anyway, the point is it's been a LOONNNGGG time since IMAX has given people the option to see an IMAX 3D film! There are several reasons for this of course: A deadly pandemic that forced the world to shut down, lack of content, the fact that reusable glasses was likely going to change people's perceptions of 3D movies and thus putting the format in real long term jeopardy...you know, all that jazz! The fact that "Doctor Strange In The Multiverse of Madness" is getting some IMAX 3D screenings at most locations says a few things:
The movie has 3D that is good enough that IMAX executives are convinced it's worth seeing.
Marvel movies still have the power to charge a few dollars more for this format.
IMAX feels that the world is in a good enough place that people will not fear putting on glasses that were previously worn by someone else.
However you want to look at it, this is very, very exciting news for 3D fans and now is your opportunity to buy tickets to see the movie in this format and send IMAX a message that projecting 3D movies is still a worthwhile endeavor! What's even better is that (at least in my area) many of the showtimes are at reasonable times, so 3D fans mostly will not need to worry about taking time off work see an odd showing at 1:35pm. If you're buying the tickets through AMC, just look a little closer to make sure you are getting the format you want. Now if you're buying your tickets from Regal...
...thankfully, they're making the difference much more obvious. Either way, thank you to the folks at IMAX for doing this and I hope I can write more articles like this in the near future! Oh, and I am VERY excited to see "Doctor Strange In the Multiverse!"
Labels:
AMC,
IMAX,
marvel,
sony
Posted by
Kevin T. Rodriguez
Friday, May 21, 2021
Although the future of 3D is still in question after Covid-19 almost destroyed the theater business (as well as proved to have an annoying fog problem for those wearing masks), it seems Sony intends to release "Venom: Let there be Carnage" in RealD 3D when the film is released in September (if the latest poster is to be believed). No word yet on whether or not the IMAX release will also be in 3D (which the previous film was released in). Although I'm still not sure how many theaters are going to be dedicating valuable screen time to 3D movies in the coming months, fans of the format can take some comfort knowing that "Godzilla vs. Kong" had 3D and 4DX screenings in America (and by all accounts did very well).
What will also be of comfort is the continued relaxing of mask regulations for those who have been vaccinated. With (hopefully) the vast majority of people vaccinated by September, wearing masks should be less of an issue, and thus fogging of the glasses won't be a concern. Although it's nice to see movies still coming out in 3D, I would be lying if I said I wanted to see this particular film in 3D. The original "Venom" was a dark movie. The 3D made things worse. If the second film is shot brighter this won't be a concern, but it is worth noting none-the-less. For fans of 3D, you have at least one more release to look forward to!
3D has survived many troubles. It's survived $3-$4 surcharges on ticket prices. It's survived 3D TV's dying. It's survived the Harry Potter ride at Universal Studios going 2D. IMAX still shows it (however infrequently). Every year there are at least a few articles written about the 'death of 3D,' and every year passes and the format is still a common occurrence in movie theaters and theme parks. What's more, foreign markets have kept the format alive and well, and with glasses free 3D TV's making remarkable progress, it seemed like the format would never really go away, it would just...be taking it easy for awhile.
However, COVID-19 could actually change that (and I'm not being hyperbolic either).
Because while it's nice to see 3D TV's without glasses make some real headway, the reality is that until they are perfected, glasses will be needed to continue to properly see 3D. 3D will need to be projected in order to keep enough interest in it for glasses free 3D to still be seen as a worthwhile pursuit. The problem is that as we slowly begin to reopen the world (and this includes our theaters and parks) there is going to be a 'new normal' for a period of time until a vaccination can be made (or until the cases are so small it's not worth worrying about). Since the pandemic started we now know that the virus primarily passes through the droplets people spew when they talk, laugh, pant, and scream (AKA: Wear a damn mask everyone), however a small amount of cases can be caused by the virus being on the surface of something.
Touch a handle that has the virus and then wipe your face a few seconds later and...yep, you can get Covid-19. Now, most 3D glasses come individually pre-packaged, so you would THINK this wouldn't be a detriment! However, there is so much going against 3D right now. Ticket sales are still down. People will question whether a pair of IMAX glasses are "clean" if they are coming off a rack. Theaters will be capped when it comes to attendance. This means (when theaters reopen) we'll be entering a world where glasses that aren't pre-packaged will be seen as suspicious, demand will still be down, and theaters might really not want to dedicate screens for a format that isn't high in demand as it is (never mind the unanswered question if most will even want to return to theaters at all)!
It's not just 3D either; I question whether 4DX will be hindered as well (is it really "safe" to see a movie where wind effects can spread things in the air?). I know that the world is a very different place these days. It's going to be different for at least a couple of years. We already know many businesses that closed will not reopen and people will move away that never return. Some things we used to do might go away as well. Though I suspect 3D will be given another shot ten years down the road, I do genuinely worry that Covid-19 might actually knock 3D down for a good while. There hasn't been a lot to talk about in the world of 3D, but as long as it exists in some form I will update this blog. Updates might not be frequent though.
So...there was a debate about 3D on "The John Campea Show" a day or two ago (depending on when this goes up) that I just KNEW I would have to comment on for this blog! It concerned a question sent in by a viewer who was upset that his local theater was showing the 3D version of "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in coveted earlier time slots, where as his preferred choice of 2D was being shown at inconvenient times like 1:45am (I personally think he's lucky; I have the exact opposite problem). This resulted in Campea going into one of his famous rants about how no one likes the 3D format, how it needs to die, and that no one wants to see 3D (while at the same time admitting some 15% of people do...oddly enough). The discussion was then turned over to Robert Burnett who had some unique insights of the format (being a fan himself) and Erin Cummings, who admitted to being burned by 3D but open to learning more about the process itself.
Overall, it was a great discussion from everyone all around, and it's certainly worth talking about here. If you want to watch the whole segment (and I strongly recommend you do) I have embedded the video below...
For those who might not have time, I'll summarize the points made by all three individuals the best I can and give my response to the points made in the order of appearance (though I also think watching the video will be faster than reading this but, eh, if you want to help me feel like my work is being appreciated... ^_^;).
John Campea
Out of the three, Campea is by far the most vocal about his hate for 3D. This is unsurprising because he sees 3D not as a means to tell a story but as a way to gouge customers for extra money at the box office (which, to be fair, is sometimes the case). He strongly condemns the theaters who are "forcing people" to see "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in the 3D format as people would much rather see it in 2D. He uses a poll he set up on his Twitter account as support for his argument, as from a total of over 2,400 responses, 89% percent said they would prefer to see the film in 2D (Editor's note: As of this writing the poll has over 6,500 responses and the number of '2D preferred' shrinks slightly to 87%). He claims that this means that theaters should only devote about 15% of their screen time to 3D movies (a fair argument, I will admit). However they instead choose to price gouge their customers for a format they don't like, have never liked, and don't want to see. He then goes into a huge rant about how no one likes 3D and it needs to die (and yesterday, if he had it his way). Campea also makes some points about theaters making a bad movie experience with too many previews that I am almost 100% in agreement with, but it's not important to the topic of this blog (another reason to watch the whole video). My Take
I love John Campea! He's my favorite person in the world to disagree with! While there is a good portion of the time I agree with what he has to say, when I disagree with him it is both frustrating and fun to watch someone who is so well versed in movies giving a perfectly plausible argument that I ultimately disagree with, but I can't help respect. If we were sparring vocally with each other in the same room, he'd be my Siskel: Someone I would fight like hell with to prove wrong, but ultimately not take it so seriously we wouldn't shake hands after our sparring match and say "well done, sir!"
That out of the way...boy does he $%^# up his own argument in more ways than one this time.
First off, we have him complaining that theaters are price gouging customers on 3D and forcing them to see a version of the movie they don't want to see. Well, as someone who DOES prefer to watch 3D (and already has his "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" IMAX 3D ticket in hand) it sometimes feels like I'm part of the small group that gets shafted all the time just because the version I want to see isn't as popular. When I got my ticket for the movie, I had ONE show time to pick if I wanted to see it in IMAX 3D (my preferred format)! The fact that it is at 4:15pm doesn't mean they are forcing people to see a version of the film they don't want to, it just means they are providing that 15% capacity rule to the people who want to see it as a reasonable time. Also, as someone who DOES prefer the 3D format, it's interesting that he doesn't stand up for my desire to see the 3D version at a reasonable time (thus forcing me to see "Avengers: Endgame" in IMAX 3D at the 'ripe' time of 11:45pm...yay...). He does admit that this isn't every theater in the world though, so I will give him that. What about his complaint that theaters are forcing 3D on people with more prime show times though? Well, I decided to look up the AMC Burbank 16 show times (a theater we both LOVE by the way) and...
...well, on preview night, there appears to be a lot more 2D showings than 3D showings (and there are a couple of 2D show times that are almost sold out, confirming that Campea is likely right about there being more demand for those showings). However, what about the premium screenings?
In this case we have a rare (I want to stress that point) case in which ALL the IMAX screenings that night are in 3D! In contrast, all the Dolby screenings are in 2D (even though they are perfectly capable of projecting some excellent 3D images). So in this case there is a 50% choice between the two, and if you are a fan of 2D and want to see the movie on preview night and those Dolby premium screenings are sold out...well, I guess you're forced (sorry, couldn't resist) to see the film in IMAX 3D or a standard screen. On the positive side, IMAX 3D almost never costs more money than a IMAX 2D screening (those surcharges are typically for regular screens, and when IMAX does charge more, it's usually by only $1). Still, this is more 3D on opening night than we usually get, so does this add some credence to the complaint that theaters are forcing 3D on 'Star Wars' fans here? What does Friday (the actual opening day) look like?
Well, well, well...it appears on opening day there is only one IMAX 3D show time. While there ARE more 3D screenings of "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" than usual, the 2D show times still easily outnumber the 3D screenings (particularly in Dolby)! As more times are announced, I bet you those screenings will be 2D, meaning that there will be a healthy balance. I will admit that the added amount of 3D screens might come off as "price gouging" in Campea's eyes, but seeing as that the previous 'Star Wars' films (with "Solo" being the exception) were all EXCELLENT in 3D and made those movies better on a visual level, it's difficult to determine if this is the theater 'price gouging' as he says, or whether there is simply more demand to see a movie like "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in 3D (movies with flight and water are especially helped by the 3D format). Either way, there appears to be a good balance here and there are still FAR more 2D screenings than 3D screenings!
For Campea one IMAX 3D screening may be too much in his eyes, because despite the fact that he admits by his own poll the theaters should be serving 10%-15% of their screens with 3D, he then goes on one of his famous rants about how no one likes 3D, no one wants to see "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in 3D, and that the format needs to die already. Um...weren't you just saying there were 10%-15% of people who LIKE 3D movies?! Doesn't that suggest that maybe 3D shouldn't go away per se, but rather change with the specific demand (his co-host Erin has an interesting idea that we'll discuss in a minute)? 10%-15% may not sound like a lot, but to an industry that sells I don't know how many millions of tickets a year (particularly to movies like this), that's a LOT of people you are saying doesn't matter! That's also a LOT of money being left on the table!
Sure, not having the choice for 3D at all doesn't mean people will stop going to movies, but that is still a substantial amount of people who want to pay for them none-the-less, and so the format doesn't need to die, it simply needs to evolve or change focus. Also...I do want to throw in one more thing before we move on to Burnett. This wasn't specifically brought up during the segment, but I want to bring it up anyway. Campea has been commenting on the whole 'Martin Scorsese vs Marvel' situation (and has been one of the more fair commentators on the subject). When Scorsese first made his comments about Marvel movies, he said he didn't watch them. Sure, he tried to watch them, but they just weren't for him. Campea (in a much more respectful tone than he gave to 3D fans) suggested that while Scorsese was a god amongst film makers, as someone who didn't watch Marvel movies, maybe he wasn't technically qualified to be making comments on them (saying they aren't cinema, they are more like amusement park rides, etc, etc).
Personally, John, I would like to humbly suggest (as someone who is not as big as you and will NEVER be watched/read as much as you) that maybe you aren't qualified to be making comments on 3D as a viable format/business? After all, you don't watch them. You have no idea if these movies would be helped or hurt by being in 3D. You really don't see how good the format can and how much better it's gotten ("Alita: Battle Angel," "Gemini Man," "Mad Max: Fury Road"). For that matter...to my knowledge, you don't own a theater. You don't know how many tickets to 3D films are sold in general. I don't think your Twitter poll (being as limited in scope as it is) gives you the right to say 3D needs to die because no one wants it. If that were TRULY the case, then no one would be buying tickets at all, and the theaters wouldn't show them period! The fact that IMAX made a big deal about going '2D only' (and I've written extensively about that) yet still manages to squeak in some 3D showings suggest that there IS an audience for them! It suggests that people DO enjoy them!
And as someone who admits to not watching them, and (again, to my knowledge) doesn't own a theater, I would like to humbly suggest you aren't qualified to be making comments about this particular subject. On a side note, I too get to go to critic screenings sometimes, and in most cases there appear to be the choice of 3D or 2D (particularly with Marvel movies), and there have been a couple times ("Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2" and "Gemini Man" come to mind) where there were people actively picking the 3D version over the 2D version, so it's not like critics who like 3D don't exist. Personally, I think it just depends on the movie and whether or not the critic wants to see that particular one in 3D. That's just me though. Alright, let's move on to Robert.
Robert Burnett
Of the three, Robert Burnett is the biggest fan of 3D. He admits to owning a 3D TV and projector (if I heard correctly) and imports many 3D films from Europe (like many of us do). He is, however, very critical of the theatrical 3D experience and says it needs to die, but for very different reasons than Campea. Instead of blaming the format itself as being the problem, he believes the problem is that for years it has been projected poorly by theaters who want to save money on bulbs (long story, but read up on it here). He mentions that "Avatar" is the only theatrical 3D experience that was met with overwhelming positive reception because James Cameron demanded that theaters project it a certain way (and left instructions on how to do it). Otherwise he claims 3D screenings are usually dim, dark, and theaters have been too slow to address the issue.
By not addressing the issue for so many years, it has burnt out too many people who will never give it another chance ("done in by our own greed" as he so excellently puts it). He claims that home 3D is a far superior experience and prefers to wait until he can watch it at home (while he laments on the fact that 3D TV's are no longer being made). He says the only 3D screenings he trusts now are IMAX 3D with laser projection. Otherwise...he skips it. The risk of a sub-par display is too great these days. Taking all this into account, he feels there is no saving the theatrical 3D market at this point, and it's probably best to let it pass by and save it for Europe and Asia who are doing it properly. Oddly enough, he doesn't comment on the fact that even in Campea's poll, there are 10%-15% of audiences who still see 3D.
My Take
With all due respect to Campea, Robert Burnett is my favorite member on the show. He is incredibly smart, very insightful, and I think he does a good job at looking at the other side of issues and explaining them in a ways that is understandable to everyone (not that Campea doesn't do that as well, but...Burnett's just a little bit better at it). I think he and Campea work great with one another and I am more than happy that he is a semi-regular on the show. In contrast to Campea, Burnett IS a fan of 3D! I appreciate this because it kept the conversation from being too one sided. And yes, I actually agree with him to a certain extent. As a 3D fan myself, I am VERY particular about where I see my 3D movies and what screens I see them on! I prefer IMAX and now that I've seen 3D in laser their projection with "Ne Zha" I am even more sold that this is the best way to experience it. Beyond that, Cinemark XD is a good screen. AMC PRIME actually has consistently great 3D projection, and should always be picked over a regular 3D screen.
Dolby has great 3D, but I haven't seen them do a 3D film in a LOOOOONNNNG time (so long in fact that the last time I saw one in the format was "Inside Out" all the way back in 2015)!!! If given a regular screen AMC is better than most. Regal is the worst. Don't know why, but they are. If you are in Orange County, Starlight 4 Star Cinema does great 3D when they decide to do it at all. I think I got off topic there for a bit...well, the point is there ARE great places to see 3D! However, the fact that I am surrounded by almost a hundred theaters within 60 miles and limit myself to less than a dozen of them to see a 3D movie speaks volumes about the quality of most 3D screenings. And Burnett is right when he says this problem has gone on for far too long and has ruined the perception of 3D. I don't know if I agree with burning the whole thing to ground, but there is a LOT of work to do if it is to turn around and survive!
I personally think there is something there to save, but do theaters want to put in the effort? I'm not sure if they do. We know the TV market isn't interested in trying again until glasses free TV's become a reality. But people keep asking about it, which means someone clearly loves it. I think Burnett went a little extreme that it was too late to save the format, but he was spot on about pretty much everything else (and even with the one thing I disagree with I admit it will take a lot of work to turn around). Finally, co-host Erin Cummings gives her two cents. It's the briefest, but it also contains the best "ah ha" moment in the entire segment.
Erin Cummings
Oh the three, Erin Cummings is the most indifferent. She claims to have been burnt by bad 3D screenings one too many times to want to give it a serious go again. After hearing about Robert's complaints she does wonder out loud if a movie theater that is designed specifically for the niche market of 3D would be better (because they would - in theory - optimize ALL their showings to be the best). She ends with comments about how she doesn't need things flying around her all the time (the joke too graphic to reprint here), but does admit that she enjoys the five minute rides at Disneyland (she just doesn't want that for two hours).
My Take
From the perspective as a casual viewer, I hear comments like Erin's a LOT! Been burnt too many times, 3D tickets cost too much money, fine for theme parks but not more than that, all the usual bullet points. Funny enough though, she makes the best suggestion about having 3D exclusive theaters whose reputation on great 3D makes a lot of sense in more ways than one. If there was a theater house that specialized in quality 3D and didn't cost much more than a regular ticket, you would be killing two birds with one stone. First of all, a 3D dedicated theater would be where that small but dedicated 3D crowd could go and see their movies, freeing up the average theater to not have 3D showings at all. Since they would be 3D only, they would make sure that their screenings would be of the highest quality, meaning people would be walking away with mostly good experiences (and likely to recommend it to their friends).
So these theaters would be filling a niche, freeing up the AMC and Regal theaters to not have to deal with the format in the near future, AND the reputation of 3D could slowly be built up again! Sounds like a win-win situation all around! Now, who would run these theaters? I don't know. It's a thought experiment right now, so give me a break! All joking aside, she does admit she liked "Avatar" and some of the theme park attractions. I think those comments backs up Burnett's points because that movie and those attractions WERE properly projected for the best possible experience! Most movies are not, which is one of the major problems with 3D today. Whether she realized it or not, she made a strong case for keeping 3D, but doing it right by the audiences. Also, she made a comment at one point she needed to read up more on how 3D works. Well...I may not have the most technical blog (and without an editor the occasional spelling error occurs), but I can point in her the right direction if she wants to see some great 3D experiences and movies (shameless plug, I know).
In Conclusion
Phew...THAT was a lot to unpack, right?! I have to say, it was a VERY interesting 14 minutes! I obviously sided with Burnett the most, but Campea and Cummings made great points as well. It was a big reminder of why I love this show so much! Either way, these are my thoughts on what was said. Why do all of you think? Is there a viewpoint you agree with more than the others? Leave your comments below and keep an eye on this space for more 3D commentary! Also, whatever format you see "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in, hopefully it is a good movie that we all can enjoy! And live long and prosper. Oh, wait, that's the OTHER sci-fi series people gripe about online. Um...may the force be with you, always!
Labels:
3D+,
Ang Lee,
HFR,
IMAX
Posted by
Kevin T. Rodriguez
Friday, October 11, 2019
Despite being VERY bad at updating this blog recently, I still get e-mails from readers asking me to comment on 3D news in the world (despite the fact there isn't much to discuss sometimes)! My thanks to all of you who are still here and still send me news tips. As you know, I do more YouTube then blogging these days, but I do like to dust off the keyboard once in awhile and type out some thoughts, and this topic seemed like the perfect one to do with: Why isn't IMAX showing "Gemini Man" in 3D+ in most of their theaters? And what is 3D+ anyway? And is it worth seeing even if the reviews have been pretty bad? Well, let's answer these almost completely out of order by starting with the question of...
What is 3D+ HFR?
3D+ HFR is a marketing term coined to describe a movie that was filmed in 3D, in High Frame Rate. Movies are typically filmed in 24 fps. That means that for every second you are watching a movie, there are 24 frames being displayed in that second to give the illusion of movement. When you film with more frame rates, usually it isn't talked about much. Many movies are shown in 30 frames per second (particularly animated films), but to go much higher creates a different, how should we say...look to a movie. It can be quite jarring if you aren't used to see HFR (which most people aren't). The HFR is not commonly used by most film makers (Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and Christopher Nolan all prefer to film in 24 fps), however we have been seeing more and more film makers give it a shot.
Peter Jackson famously filmed 'The Hobbit Trilogy' in 3D with 48 fps, giving the film a look that was a lot smoother and moved a bit more like real life. I personally didn't like it much. I felt those movies didn't look very much like movies so much as they looked like home videos, and the disconnect between the special effects and actors were pretty clear watching it in that format. That said, the 3D had noticeably less strain on the eyes and many people who typically get headaches from 3D (like my aunt) commented how pleasant the overall experience was, so there were pros. 60 fps have also been a God send for video games, so just because it didn't work once didn't mean it wasn't worth trying again.
Enter Ang Lee
This is the part of the blog post where we take a side story by discussing our director, Ang Lee, one of the most acclaimed film makers of our time. He has directed multiple movies include the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar winner "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." He has personally won two Best Director Oscars for the films "Brokeback Mountain" and "Life of Pi" (neither of which won Best Picture if you can believe it). Although he has directed some underwhelming films, Lee is a great director who likes to challenge not only the audience, but himself as a film maker. His "Hulk" movie may not have been well loved by many, but if you rewatch it again and pay attention to the style, the visuals, and the angle of which the film was conceived to be about, you'll find an auteur challenging the status quo on what a super hero film is, even if the end results aren't entirely successful.
After filming "Life of Pi," Lee was so impressed with the what the 3D brought to the film that he decided to make most of his future films in the format. His follow-up project was "Billy Lynn's Halftime Walk..."
...an Iraq war drama that didn't seem like it would make for a compelling 3D experience, but is actually one of the best uses of the 3D format I've seen. Lee wanted to take 3D to a new level though and bring the frame rate not up to 30, not 48, not even 60, but a whopping 120fps. When you think of what I just described and that new number, you are talking about frame rate overload. It was so ambitious, only two theaters in America were able to show it, and that was after extensive renovations to the theaters themselves. It seemed to be a waste when the film was barely marketed in one of the worst releases I had ever seen, but the few people who HAD seen the 120 fps version were intrigued by what the future could bring! Ultimately, maybe it was just the wrong type of movie to be going all experimental on.
'Billy Lynn' was never going to draw a lot of people to the theater. It was not a movie that was going to specifically sell 3D tickets when "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" was also playing. Most theaters near me were only showing the film once a day. Usually at 10:00pm at night (without 3D). The reviews were lukewarm. It was a movie that probably should have been made for $10-$20 million, but because of the expensive 3D and experimental frame rate, ended up costing $40 million to produce (though, from what my Hollywood friends tell me, Lee should be lucky that's ALL it cost). Either way, the film was a bomb, raking in just over $30 worldwide. Still, the format showed promise, and Lee still wanted to experiment with making great 3D movies a little bit more, so he would need another movie to make.
His last film had bombed, but not so much that another studio wouldn't take a chance on him. He would need something a little more profitable though. Preferably with an actor who can be a draw. An action movie would be ideal because it would justify the expensive use of 3D cameras and HFR he wanted to film with. That's when Jerry Bruckheimer - a well known producer of blockbusters - came to Lee with "Gemini Man," a script that had been in development hell for some 20 years. Bruckheimer wanted it to be made, envisioned it as a great 3D vehicle for Smith, which would also test groundbreaking 'de-aging' special effects that would give Lee a lot to experiment with as a director, and stretch Smith as an actor. Regardless how the movie turned out (apparently not that good) it made sense. Lee finally had his mainstream movie to give his new experiment (which is now officially dubbed 3D+) a second chance with a MUCH wider release!
Why isn't IMAX showing the 3D+ HFR version in most of their theaters?
I hate having to bring this up every time, but I want to be transparent for new readers: I am an investor in IMAX Corporation. It's more of what I like to call a 'vanity stock' than anything, but I still have a vested interest in the company doing well. That said, long time readers of my site know that I have been openly critical of their choice to not screen many movies in 3D (even when the 3D version is CLEARLY better than the 2D version). With that out of the way, what is my opinion of IMAX's decision to screen "Gemini Man" mostly in the 2D format? While there are a FEW places that will have the film in 3D+, the vast majority will be in 2D, which seems to run counter to what Lee envisioned when he made this film! Truthfully, while I am frustrated that this is the direction they are going, I'm going to cut them some slack because they might not have much of a choice in the matter.
See, projecting a movie in 3D+ isn't as simple as flicking a switch. It requires a special projector, a certain type of lens, and in some cases seats have to be removed because sitting too close will cause the image to be ugly. Looking through the list of IMAX's in my area I noticed a reoccurring theme: Theaters that have laser projection in their IMAX's had the film in 3D. Those that didn't were showing it in 2D. Recently, me and my wife (yes, it HAS been awhile since I've posted) went to see a Chinese film in IMAX 3D called "Ne Zha," which was only showing at an IMAX with laser projection. It was one of the smoothest and cleanest 3D presentations I had ever seen. The fact that it was only at this IMAX probably spoke volumes about how difficult this new type of 3D is to project. The Irvine Spectrum IMAX is being closed for a few months for renovations.
"Alita: Battle Angel" was shown exclusively in IMAX 3D, so the company is ok with skipping a 2D release if the visuals justify it. "Gemini Man" would clearly benefit from being in 3D, but what if the theater can't project the 120 fps? Does a 24 fps 3D version of this movie even exist? I'm starting to think no. I do believe that laser projection is IMAX's future. It presents a cleaner image, it makes the 3D better, and slowly but surely the IMAX's in my area are being closed to get the upgrades (some are also changing out the seats while they're at it, which is another topic for another day since while it does result in more comfortable seats it also results in a 40% average reduction of capacity). I think this is a case where IMAX clearly believes the 3D+ version is THE way to see it, or else they wouldn't advertise it as such, but...well, most of their theaters can't show it, so they have to go with the 2D version! In that case, I'd probably just show "Joker" for a second week in a row, but that's just me. This is all fine and dandy, but...
Should I see "Gemini Man" in 3D+ if the movie sucks?
Honestly, that one's up to you. I've found that trying out a new experience is usually enough of a reason to get me to see a movie I otherwise would have no interest in seeing ("Suicide Squad" in 4DX for example), but I know tickets aren't cheap. That said, if you have an AMC Stubs A-List subscription, maybe one of your local AMC's will have a 3D+ version playing (even if it's not in IMAX). Considering that's pretty much a free ticket anyway, there is little reason to not give it a chance other than you don't have time to. If money is on the line I leave that one up to you. I'm seeing it in IMAX 3D+ tonight, so I'll let you know what I think about it either in a VLOG or with another blog post. For those who are uninterested in "Gemini Man" altogether, "The Adams Family" is also opening, which has a select number of 3D screenings as well (and - so far - has slightly better reviews overall).
Labels:
disney,
IMAX,
realD 3D
Posted by
Kevin T. Rodriguez
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
We need to get the obvious out of the way first: Disney's "Aladdin" IS showing in IMAX 3D in some cities! We need to state this upfront because for the sake of this argument, that would normally be in play for this discussion. The problem is that IMAX is being really stingy with how many 3D screenings of the film they provide. Most theaters only have one showing and that one showing is typically early in the day, long before most people get out of work and school on the weekdays. Since the weekend and Memorial Day has passed, there is virtually no guarantee of hard working Americans being available to see this screening (and there is an even greater chance the 3D screenings will be dropped altogether for the second week). For all intents and purposes, the IMAX 3D version is effectively off the table for anyone who doesn't want to call out sick sometime this week. That means we must look critically to see if the 3D effects in "Aladdin" are worth giving up giant screen experience.
For what it's worth, I don't think "Aladdin" is a movie worth seeing in the first place. I wrote a review on it, but the long and short of it is that this is a movie that is a pale imitation of the original, doesn't add anything truly great to what was already there, and that you will have an equal (and outright better experience) if you stayed home and rewatched your BluRay of the original. Let's say you do want to subject yourself to Will Smith's blue Genie though (who - in all fairness - was the best thing about this remake), it's good to know that while the movie wasn't filmed in 3D, director Guy Ritchie was aware it was going to be projected in 3D. Therefor there are MANY shots that take advantage of the third dimension! The opening shot alone makes a strong case for seeing the film in 3D, as the camera pans over the water, the credits turn to dust, and the scene ends with the viewer going in and through the citizens of Agrabah. For some time after the movie doesn't make much use of 3D until we get to the "Friend Like Me" musical number (the other highlight of this film), in which 3D highlights the sheer insanity of the sequence much better than 2D does.
Ironically, this is where the 3D starts to cool a bit. The "Prince Ali" number is rather flat in how musical numbers should be, so there's not much of a draw there (although the ostriches and confetti coming at the audience was sort of cool). You would think "A Whole New World" would benefit from 3D (since the characters are flying on a magic carpet and all that), but the scene is oddly still and quiet, so the effects aren't put to much use. I'm sorry to say this version of the movie does NOT have a sequence where Aladdin fights a giant snake, but Jafar still turns into a red genie, so that's kind of neat! Otherwise, the movie is fairly pedestrian. Ritchie does include some slow motion shots that highlight the 3D aspects, however those sequences are fairly brief and few and far between. So what do I ultimately think? Well, if IMAX 3D IS an option (and you insist on seeing this movie) I would go with that! If it's not, the ideal middle ground might be Cinemark XD 3D or AMC Prime 3D. They aren't as big as IMAX screens, but they are of pretty decent size, so it would be a suitable compromise.
If you have to choose between the two, I would lean towards the 3D version, but only slightly (and not enough to recommend you go out of your way to a theater that isn't close by). In the case of "Aladdin" there is a lot of reason to recommend the 3D version, but not enough to completely shun the IMAX release. This is one of those experiences that toe the line on whether or not the 3D is integral to the movie. On that level it probably isn't, however the few scenes where it is used cleverly is enough to give it the edge that the 3D version is likely the one you'll want to see.
Welcome to "Ultimate 3D Fans!" Formerly known as "Save BluRay 3D," this is the (maybe, possibly, I'm not really sure) number one 3D blog on the internet!
Whether you want news and commentary on movies in 3D, gaming in 3D, or even theme park attractions in 3D, "Ultimate 3D Fans" has been a haven where fans of 3D have been able to share their love for the format! Make sure to bookmark us (that's still a thing this day and age)!
.jpg)
.jpg)
