"Star Wars: The Last Jedi" Poster Advertises IMAX 3D

The most recent posters for movies that have been coming out to IMAX have been omitting the word '3D' from advertisements.  This happened for "Justice League," "Thor: Ragnorak," and (most obviously) "Blade Runner 2049."  I assume IMAX has been vague about the '3D' part because they were in the process of pulling away from 3D movies, and didn't want to be falsely advertising them.  Then "Blade Runner 2049" didn't bring in any more movie goers than most of their 3D movies did.  That raised the question on whether or not the company would stick with their new policy or back track a little bit.  Well, while I can't point to this as a definite reversal of policy, when "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" tickets went on sale, I was quick to point out that way more theaters were showing it in 3D and that 2D showings were (at the moment), hard to find.  Well, a new poster for the movie has emerged, and the most telling thing is that it is once again advertising the movie is going to be in IMAX 3D.

So, at least for this movie, IMAX Corporation is pushing the 3D version as the version to see.  I guess we'll see how long THAT lasts!

Read more »

IMAX Embracing 3D Once Again with "Star Wars: The Last Jedi?"

It has been a rocky road for IMAX the last few months in terms of ticket sales and their corporate stance on 3D.  In the summer they boldly claimed that 3D was dead and that future IMAX releases would be in 2D (with "Blade Runner 2049" being the first to forgo the third dimension altogether).  However, a funny thing happened after that though: 2D screenings were largely no more attended than 3D movies.  With the possible exception of "It," movies like "Kingsman: The Golden Circle" and "Blade Runner 2049" did just OK in IMAX, while "Inhumans" and "War for the Planet of the Apes" tanked outright.  I want to state that I personally don't believe the fact that these movies were in 2D are the cause for them not doing well.  I think these were movies people weren't as interested in seeing in general, and that reflected on IMAX tickets as well as standard tickets (and, in the case of "Inhumans," having a poor showing on TV).

Indeed, the announcement to go from all 3D to all 2D was an announcement meant to confirm that ticket sales would go up, but now that we have proof that such a change made very little impact on overall ticket sales, the company needs to go back to the drawing board to figure out what they're really doing wrong (Spoiler: high ticket costs and shrinking screen sizes may play a MAJOR role in this).  So with this idea that 3D was hurting attendance being proven untrue at this point, it's time for the company to do what all companies do when they realize they made a bold claim they can't back up with facts: back peddle.  That is why "Thor: Ragnorok" is going to have both 2D AND 3D showings split evenly down the middle.  The same will likely happen for "Justice League."  What stands out most though is what the company is doing with "Star Wars: The Last Jedi."  Now, for those who are unaware, tickets for the movie went up for pre-order a few days ago.

It was announced by IMAX Corporation that the movie would be shown in IMAX 2D, IMAX 70mm (which is also going to be in 2D), and IMAX 3D.  So right off the bat they announced that 3D was going to be one of the experiences viewers could choose, the only question remaining is how much?  With two formats available in 2D it seemed like the company was going to give preferred treatment to two dimensional showings...until they didn't.

Although ticket pre-ordering is still early for the movie (and more showings are bound to be added), what is interesting to note is that almost all of these preview showings are in 3D.  In fact, from the two pages worth of theater listings that are currently available in my area, only ONE is showing the movie in 2D!  That screening is happening at the TCL Chinese Theater (which, for the record, has a FANTASTIC IMAX screen), where the 10:00m and 1:45am showings are being shown in 2D!  That said, it should also be noted they have a 'fan event' to kick off the (what looks to be an all night) string of screenings is in 3D, which means that theater may believe 2D is the more profitable of the two formats, someone bigger is pushing the 3D version as the opening act because they believe this is the format its meant to be seen in.

Which makes a lot of sense.  "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" was one of the biggest 3D success stories in the past five years, and the lack of a BluRay 3D release was so strong at Disney that the company caved and gave it an elaborate special edition release several months later.  Also, George Lucas was in the process of converting all the previous Star Wars films into 3D formats, so there's that fact for whatever its worth.  What is going to be interesting about this specific release is how much more screen showings the 3D version of 'The Last Jedi' receives and how well it does.  Will it be big enough to get IMAX to change course on what was (at the very least) a misguided idea?  How big of a success will it be?  I have no doubt this will be the biggest success for IMAX this year.  There's almost no way it can't be.

The big question, I suppose I have, is that if this is a huge success DESPITE the lack of 2D showings, wouldn't that prove my point that 3D isn't in and of itself the problem with their ticket sales?!  Does that mean IMAX will just have to completely back peddle?  Or, what if we get closer to the release and the screenings are split more down the middle between 2D and 3D?  Will it mean more or less ticket sales for IMAX?  Will it be noticed if there less ticket sales this time around when the movie (possible) does better business overall?  Which version will have had the lower sales?  Will the 70mm screenings be more profitable than the digital screenings were like "Dunkirk" was earlier this year?  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  Whatever version you see though, may the force be with you...always.

Read more »

IMAX Loses Bet that Audiences ONLY Want 2D with "Blade Runner 2049" Release!

IMAX's bet that 3D was the reason for sagging ticket sales is officially wrong.

Alright, this was proven wrong a month ago, but now we can say without a shadow of a doubt 3D showings have NOT been contributing to lower than hoped for ticket sales!  For those new to the situation, IMAX Corporation announced a few months ago that audiences had spoken: They hate 3D overwhelmingly prefer 2D movies!  Thus, they would be scaling back on IMAX 3D movies, and they would start by releasing "Blade Runner 2049" exclusively in 2D (they also, I want to add, also said they would be showing most movies only one week, and I'll explain why that's important later).  Now, as I wrote about last week, this didn't bother the film makers of the movie.  In fact, both the director AND cinematographer wen ton record stating that 2D was the way the movie was meant to be seen! 

That is probably more of a reason it's only being shown in IMAX 2D as opposed to anything else, but the company needed to show they were doing something - ANYTHING - drastic to show that they were going to do something to lure more people into IMAX theaters!  The problem with this method is that while 2D may indeed have been the film makers intended format to view the movie, but launching war on the 3D fanbase, you actually got many of them (me included) to write scathing articles about how we were NOT going to see the movie in IMAX!  I'm actually going to see the movie in both formats and write a review later on describing which version to see, but I remained skeptical that only showing the movie in 2D would prove any more profitable than usual.  So, how did "Blade Runner 2049" do at the IMAX box office?  Well, as you probably guessed from the headline, it isn't completely good.  However, let's look at box office numbers for IMAX movies that opened this year on their opening weekend (and please keep in mind these are rough estimates from Box Office Mojo):

• xXx: Return of Xander Cage (3D) - $1.8 million
• Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (3D) - $800,000
• The Lego Batman Movie (2D) - $400,000
• Logan (2D) - $10.1 million
• Kong: Skull Island (3D) - $7.4 million
• Beauty and the Beast (3D) - $21 million
• Ghost in the Shell (3D) - $2.9 million
• The Fate of the Furious (2D) - $6.7 million
• Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (3D) - $25 million
• Alien: Covenant (2D) - $5 million
• Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (3D) - $8.2 million
• Wonder Woman (3D) - $12.4 million
• The Mummy (3D) - $700,000
• Despicable Me 3 (2D) - $300,000
• Cars 3 (2D) - $100,000 (yes, "Cars 3" truly is Pixar's least attended film)
• Transformers: The Last Knight (3D) - $5.2 million
• Spider-Man: Homecoming (3D) - $13.8 million
• Dunkirk (2D) - $11.9 million
• Inhumans (2D) - $2.85 million (this isn't the opening weekend: This is the ENTIRE gross!  This was an IMAX funded exclusive that didn't play in ANY other theaters, and it did worse than just the opening weekend of "Ghost in the Shell")!
• It (2D) - $8.2 million

Now then, the numbers vary a little bit as IMAX records are not reported on in the most rigorous detail, but these are roughly what the opening box office numbers were for movies that were showing in IMAX.  From the list we can gather a few facts: The three highest grossing opening weekends were for 3D movies ("Beauty & the Beast," "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2," and "Spider-Man: Homecoming").  With the exception of "Beauty and the Beast," the movies that made the most money tended to be the movies that were largely considered 'good' as opposed to 'bad.'  Also, most of these movies stayed in IMAX for more than one week, which is probably why the company really wants to get enough movies to keep content fresh on their screens, as you don't want to get stuck with a stinker any longer than you have to.

Also, judging by the numbers, it appears that good 3D movies are making roughly the same as good 2D movies, so you have to wonder how much IMAX's claim holds up.  Well, let's stop beating around the bush; what did "Blade Runner 2049" ultimately make for IMAX in the opening weekend? 

*drum roll*

$5.2 million

That's it.  Purely from a side of finances, it did no better than most 3D bombs and far worse than most 3D successes.  The big announcement that "Blade Runner 2049" would make more money if shown only in 2D has officially proven to be false.  Of course, "Inhumans" sort of proved this a month ago, but since that was a TV pilot that just happened to be screened on IMAX's across America, there was still a little doubt.  With "Blade Runner 2049" there is a 3D version out there, and not having this one in 3D didn't yield in any more money.  Now then, to give IMAX credit in one area, the movie only made $31 million all around, which means this is officially a box office disappointment.  The difference between this movie and most of the ones up there is that if you look at the box office in general, IMAX movies tended to account for somewhere between 5%-12% of the opening total gross.  With "Blade Runner 2049" that number creeps closer to 25%, so that IS an uptake in IMAX ticket sales!

The problem is it doesn't really matter much in a business where accounting is everywhere.  It sort of reminds me when my family went on the Toy Story Mania ride at Disney's California Adventure, where I got the highest score of the family.  My mom - in comparison - got the lowest score.  However, she chalked it up to a win because she had the highest accuracy rate.  I love my mom, but in the real word accuracy and more tickets sold doesn't mean anything if it doesn't result in more money being made.  For that matter, "Beauty and the Beast" and "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" had numbers that took roughly 25% of the opening grosses themselves.  What do all three of these movies have in common?

All three had aspect ratios that were specifically fitted for IMAX theaters, resulting in about 26% more image at the top and bottom of the screen, to make it more immersive on those giant screens (and people wanted to see them in general).  

That may be a bigger selling point than 3D or film is, so IMAX Corporation may want to start investing in more movies being shot with IMAX cameras so that they can brag about having the "true" image on opening weekend.  Regardless what they decide to do in the future, I think it's pretty clear their attempt to make more money with "Blade Runner 2049" by ditching 3D altogether was a wash.  Would it have made more or less if it had been in 3D?  That's hard to say.  I think the box office shows people weren't as interested in this as Warner Bros. hoped they would be in general, but it seems unlikely 3D would have hurt the ticket sales any more.  People usually want to see good movies and will pay for them in IMAX regardless of the picture format.  I don't know why they didn't want to come out and see this movie, but genuinely great movies bombing at the box office is not a new thing, and is another topic for a different article altogether.

Read more »

Is "Blade Runner 2049" Worth Seeing in RealD 3D or IMAX 2D?

Alright, I know a lot of you have been wondering where I've been and I'll just state this now: Never get writer's block.  With that out of the way, tonight we will have our first screenings of "Blade Runner 2049," which is being shown in 2D, 3D, and IMAX 2D.  This is IMAX's first public war with 3D.  They fired some warning shots earlier in the year with "The LEGO Batman Movie," "Cars 3," "Despicable Me 3," and "War of the Planet of the Apes."  When it came to THIS movie though, the CEO of IMAX made it very clear that audiences preferred 2D films over 3D, cited "Dunkirk" as their key example, and bragged that "Blade Runner 2049" would be shown in 2D only!

As you can guess, I wasn't impressed with these statements.

Now, "Blade Runner 2049" is put in an unfortunate position of being a movie that IMAX is using to play an elaborate game of chicken with their audiences.  The thing is, by using the movie as a scapegoat to get rid of 3D, IMAX has ignored a potentially bigger issue that (as serious fans of 3D and movies in general) we need to be discussing: That director Denis Villeneuve doesn't want the movie to see seen in 3D.  He filmed it in 2D and always intended to be seen in 2D.  He hasn't made any statements himself, but his cinematographer Roger Deakins (whose work is pretty fantastic if you ask me) has admitted in interviews that the 3D post-conversion was a job done by the studios, and that 2D is the way to view the film.  On a discussion forum on is official website he was prodded by anxious movie goers and asked what he thought of the 3D conversion.

At first he jokingly plead the fifth, before elaborating a little bit more.  He confirmed that, yes, he WAS involved in the 3D conversion process!  He confirmed that, yes, it looks competent.  Finally, he confirmed that, no, he doesn't think too highly of 3D (and this conversion looked as good as it could knowing that its not supposed to look this way).  Now, this is where I maybe have to take some responsibility because I have been critical of IMAX for throwing 3D under the bus to explain sagging ticket sales.  I mean, it's true, but when they announced that "Blade Runner 2049" was going to be released in 2D only I got out my pitchfork and planned for a full boycott of the movie in IMAX, being unaware of the fact that both the director AND cinematographer are apparently not happy with how this 3D version turned out!

While George Miller was more than happy to convert "Mad Max: Fury Road" into 3D because of the effect it added to the movie, apparently Deakins and Villeneuve feel the 3D effect hurts "Blade Runner 2049" more than it helps.  This puts me in an interesting position because of how IMAX has sold this release.  3D fans are justifiably pissed because the company has made it sound like buying a ticket for this movie is a vote AGAINST 3D in the future!  On the other hand, we have film creators who are in the corner telling us that they would honestly prefer we see the movie in 2D.  By all accounts, that means that the IMAX release of "Blade Runner 2049" is the best way to see the movie, as it is on a larger than life screen with 26% more image to show.  Yet IMAX has positioned it where fans of 3D don't want to see the movie in the best possible way because they are afraid they will be voting against seeing "Justice League" in IMAX 3D.

Personally...I'm going to do my homework and see the film both in 3D AND in IMAX 2D!  I'll see it in IMAX first, but I will make it a point to see it again in 3D.  Should my writers block be gone by then (I don't know if you can tell, but I'm still struggling at the moment), I will report what I think of the two different visual experiences, and which format I ultimately liked better.  If you should take one thing away from this article its this: "Blade Runner 2049" in 2D was always the preferred way to view this movie, and by using the film as a political reason to scale back on 3D in the future, IMAX has likely scared away people from buying tickets to see the movie simply because they didn't communicate this with people.  In a way, by emphasizing stock over the film makers vision, they made far more enemies than they needed to.

Update: For those who want to know my final verdict on the 3D version of "Blade Runner 2049," I have written a follow-up article here!

Read more »

Want to see "The LEGO Ninjago Movie" in IMAX? Good Luck Finding it...

"The LEGO Ninjago Movie" is not exactly my most anticipated movie of the year.  I LOVED "The LEGO Movie" (so much so I gave it a rare five star review and listed it as one of the best films of the year), and I reasonably enjoyed "The LEGO Batman Movie," but to do a second round of these movies in the exact same year is stretched it for me!  I know continuity is not a big issue for this (now) franchise, but it just seems like Warner Bros. is churning these out as fast as they can before people get bored with them.  They are taking something that was unique and special and Shreking it up, where soon the supply will at outweigh the demand (which, I want to add, doesn't mean the products won't be good, only that people will be so sick of them they will be passing them up even if the final product is good).  "The LEGO Ninjago Movie" was originally announced to be coming to IMAX 3D.  The '3D' part was still in question for me when IMAX made the strange choice to strip "The LEGO Batman Movie," "Despicable Me 3," and "Cars 3" of their 3D presentations, so I figured this would be a 2D only showing.

Well, turns out if you wanted to see the movie in IMAX you may be out of luck altogether.  Unfortunately for "The LEGO Ninjago Movie," it is sharing a release day with "Kingsman: The Golden Circle."  IMAX made a deal to project both movies.  Despite the previous two LEGO movies opening number one at the box office and being far bigger hits than most analysts could have predicted, the company is choosing to show 'Kingsman' at the vast majority of their theaters.  In fact, none of the IMAX's in the LA area is even showing "The LEGO Ninjago Movie."  Thankfully, a lot of regular theaters are showing it in 3D (with even a few XD and RPX screens projecting it), so people who want to see the movie in 3D have the option to do so.  If you want to see it on the REALLY big screen though...eh, looks like your out of luck!  Also, if you have an IMAX that DOES happen to be showing it, I wouldn't expect it to be in 3D! 

Despite the huge success of the re-release of "Wonder Woman" and the utter bombing of "Inhumans," IMAX Corporation is still going forward with scrapping 3D for most of their future showings.  At the moment they are going to be offering future Marvel movies in both formats, but I think we'll just have to wait out their business rethinking.  At one point they will realize that 3D isn't what's keeping people away from their theaters, and I assume it will be back at some point.  Hopefully it will be before we miss out on too many 3D worthy films, but we'll have to wait and see on that one.  In the meantime, I hope everyone enjoys "Kingsman: The Golden Circle," which is one of the few sequels I've been looking forward to seeing.

Read more »

"The Emoji Movie" and "Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets" Both MIA in BluRay 3D?

Not going to lie: This is a tough one for me.

No, not in the sense that I want either of these movies in 3D (or at all), but the fact that I must condem the lack of a domestic BluRay 3D release for either "The Emoji Movie" or "Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets."  Neither of these movies are very good.  One is clearly a little better than the other, but neither of these are movies I want to buy.  I don't even want to rent them.  Heck, I don't want to stream them.  Not getting domestic 3D releases of these movies should (in theory) be no big deal because these are movies I don't want to watch again.  I did see both of them in 3D in theaters and felt the effects were nice, but since the movies were terrible it was all a moot point.  "The Emoji Movie," in particular, is a movie that is bad in such a unique way that you can't help but wonder how it got off the ground in the first place.

"Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets" is at least directed by Luc Besson, who has a huge following as a visually good director (though I must admit I find most of his movies to be boring and logistical messes at the end of the day).  It may be why this movie is being released in 3D in the UK as an Amazon.com exclusive.  I need to warn people that there is no promise of this being a region free disk, so buy at your own risk (if this exclusive version is made available in the US I will make note of it).  For me, it's disappointing that fans of these movies don't have much in the way of a choice if they want to see the movie in 3D.  I might not want to buy these movies, but there are some people who do, and they should have the right to do so.  For that matter, I did not buy "Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie" this week because of a lack of 3D release (even though it is something I clearly want to watch again).

I'm starting to think that the movies that get 3D releases and those that do not are being picked by throwing darts at a board.  That's all I can go by these days, because very little is making sense anymore.  Right now I'm just thankful that "War of the Planet of the Apes" is getting a domestic BluRay 3D release.  I mean, yeah, that's a good movie that deserves to be bought in 3D, but who the heck knows what the criteria is for making that decision anymore?!

For those curious, I DID write a review for "The Emoji Movie" that can read here!

Read more »

"Thor: Ragnarok" to be Showin in IMAX 2D AND 3D (Also, it has a Pretty Exclusive Poster)!!!

Well...it looks like IMAX isn't ready to give up 3D just yet.  I wondered if they would.  Their announcement that "Blade Runner 2049" was going to be shown in 2D only got them LOTS of negative publicity from fans (in all fairness, there were lots of people who also were on board with the choice)!  There are signs that IMAX may be having some second thoughts about the new policy in regards to certain movies.  Maybe "Blade Runner 2049" is a movie they think they can get away with testing a 2D only release on, but they certainly aren't pulling the 3D version of "Star Wars: The Last Jedi."  Furthermore, their four biggest hits of the year were "Wonder Woman," "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2," "Spider-Man: Homecoming," and "Dunkirk."  What may stand out is that three of those movies are in 3D and all three are superhero movies, which means they might not want to throw that audience out to the curb just yet (especially when the re-release of "Wonder Woman" was in 3D and did very well).  So, they are compromising...

As you can see, at the three IMAX's in my area that have confirmed "Thor: Ragnorak" will be showing at, the theaters will be showing both 2D AND 3D versions of the movie!  No doubt they will do this for the next few superhero movies to see which versions sell more tickets.  I also have no doubt that the 2D showings will be given the more time friendly showings, with the 3D versions showing first thing in the morning and last thing at night.  It might also make good market sense though.  3D fans will go out of their way to see the 3D versions, so putting them in undesirable timeslots might just capitalize on that "niche" market.  That said, take note of the IMAX only poster for the movie above.  Notice how it only advertises the film as being played "in IMAX" and omits the 3D part?  That is deliberate, believe me.  They don't want to commit to showing 3D films anymore.  They want an out, so they won't advertise it anymore.

I suspect this to be the case for at least a little while.  My prediction is that this experiment is ultimately going to be a bust.  I don't think peoples viewing habits are going to change much, and something tells me that since the biggest barrier people have with 3D is the cost (which IMAX cost the same regardless which version you are watching) I believe both versions will sell roughly the same amount of tickets.  The good news for us is that this means 3D will still be carrying its weight at the theater.  The bad news means the IMAX Corporation won't have that excuse anymore when it comes time to explain falling ticket sales again, and they might have to address the REAL reasons people aren't going to IMAX anymore: Smaller screens, high ticket price, and bad movies that don't benefit from being on a giant screen!

Good luck guys.

Read more »

IMAX's Big "Inhumans" Blunder

IMAX believes that the main reason people are going to their theaters less this year is because audiences would prefer to see movies in 2D rather than 3D.  This is SUCH a misguided belief that I'm still working on a multi-part series on why this is the case!  What baffles me though is after this (very unfounded) claim was made, IMAX decided that to help turn their fortunes around they would turn to television.  No, seriously, the biggest new release theaters received this weekend was "Marvel's Inhumans," which is NOT a movie, but rather the two episode pilot to a TV series that will be airing on ABC in a few weeks.  Reportedly, the first two episodes were filmed with IMAX cameras in a deal IMAX struck with Marvel to help fund the series.  The pilot grossed about $1.5 million dollars in the opening weekend.  That is (if my numbers are correct) the lowest opening of ANY IMAX release this entire year!

I just want to pause and ask if anyone at IMAX noticed that this isn't in 3D?  No?  Alright, moving on...

So, IMAX decided that it wanted to invest heavily in "Inhumans" so that they could have the first two episodes exclusive to their screens.  Marvel - in an attempt to curb the cost of the series to make it more likely to be picked up by ABC - decided to cut the deal.  There is no word on what would have happened if the deal had gone through and ABC decided to pass on the project.  Look, I know on paper this probably sounded a little good.  And when I say it sounded good I mean it sounded good to have something on your screen that was exclusive to you that had Marvel in the title.  That must have sounded like a good deal.  Also, "Iron Fist" hadn't premiered yet, so people didn't yet realize that Marvel could make a TV series that was really terrible yet.  None of that changes the fact that this is a TV SHOW that is being put on a HUGE screen!  A TV show is going to have a MUCH lower budget than a movie and it will SHOW on an IMAX!

Heck, they already tried this with a season final of "Game of Thrones" a few years ago, and if THAT wasn't going to work on IMAX, what the heck made them think "Inhumans" would?!  So...why am I talking about this on the site?  This doesn't really have much to do with 3D, I will admit, but IMAX is on a  special list for me.  I'm going to be watching their box office VERY closely because I don't for a second believe 3D is the reason IMAX attendance is down!  I believe it is the movies they decide to show.  I believe it is because the screens are getting smaller while the surcharge is going up.  I believe it is because when you compare those smaller screens to RPX and XD (both of which are a couple dollars cheaper) there is virtually no difference.  Heck, I believe they are suffering just like all the other theaters out there due to lower than expected ticket sales in general this year.  In an attempt to spin it though, they saw the success of "Dunkirk" and decided 3D was the problem.

Now though...now, they have given me a gift.  They invested MILLIONS of dollars in this deal with Marvel to get "Inhumans" on IMAX screens!  A show that (now that I've seen it) is average at best and looks cheap on the giant screen.  The box office was less than $2 million dollars for it's entire week.  This is the LOWEST grossing IMAX release of the year!  So low was this figure, that a last minute limited release of "It" for IMAX is getting a considerably bigger rollout today.  Yet, not only was "Inhumans" in 2D, but it's a production IMAX wasted valuable money in.  Money, I'm certain, they could have probably used to help get through the ticket drought.  Also, "Wonder Woman" came back in IMAX 3D for a week and did VERY well while a 2D only engagement of "War for the Planet of the Apes" left no impact!  However...there is something else IMAX isn't getting, and it's something we can look at in a future post.

Read more »

"Spider-Man: Homecoming" Confirmed for BluRay 3D

With Pixar reportedly prepping "Cars 3" without a BluRay 3D in mind, it is nice to see Marvel still appears to still be in the game, as "Spider-Man: Homecoming" has been announced for a statewide BluRay 3D release.  What's more, ads of the movie appearing in Best Buy ad's are very interesting to the trained eye.  If you look closely, while most movies are advertised as being flat on the TV, Spider-Man is seen jumping OUT of the TV, giving people who see the ad a subtle nod that Marvel has meant for the film to be viewed in 3D!  That said, I do need to mention that there is no ultimate combo pack that will contain both the 3D AND 4K version of the film, so you will ultimately need to choose which one you would rather have!  I don't know about you, but the choice it pretty obvious for me.

Read more »

Retailers Selling Heavily Discounted BluRay 3D's

Last night when I was in a 7-Eleven, I saw two things I didn't think I would ever see: Crystal Pepsi back in stock and a BluRay 3D combo pack for "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters."  A couple months ago I found a BluRay 3D combo pack of "Epic" at a Big Lots.  While these sightings aren't common, they are out there.  Some may ask what this means for the format.  Frankly, it means nothing more than these are old disks that didn't sell very well, and whatever retailer originally stocked it, decided it would be more profitable to sell them to these stores at a heavy discount.  This was not the only movie that 7-Eleven was selling.  There were brand new copies of "Die Hard," "Field of Dreams," and "A Good Day to Die Hard" (among other title) the store was selling.  All brand new, all at $5.  Really, go by your local 7-Eleven (you may find something you've always wanted to get cheap).

Why this makes me chuckle (and why I decided to write this blog post) is that this is actually not a terrible thing for the format.  The idea that there were BluRay 3D titles out there that had enough copies made that some of them are winding up in bargain bins is sort of a good thing.  Because these are combo packs no one is going to think twice about buying them.  At $5 what are you really losing?  At most the digital copy might have expired, but there's still a BluRay and DVD you can watch.  What this does do is put 3D disks into peoples hands that are affordable.  Affordable disks was a natural evolution the format needed.  The way you got people to think more about buying a 3D TV was to get them 3D content.  Most 3D content was priced out of the regular consumers hands though.

I bought "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters" because it was a cheap addition to my 3D collection, but I knew deep down that if there were more cheap releases like this, then more people might want a 3D feature in their future TV purchase to watch it in the format.  Discounted movies is not something a studio wants to have but is an evil necessity to helping grow formats and selling disks that might otherwise not get sold.  In another year or so more of these BluRay 3D's will be popping up in discounted forms.  People will buy them.  Sooner or later, some of them will get curious about watching their 3D disks.  Will there be any TV's they can get that will give them that ability when the time comes?  Who knows?  Would have been a good time to have them on the market for the audience that will inevitably want to watch these disks though.  Sort of sad to think about, no?

Read more »

CORRECTION: Vudu will RENT 3D Version of "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" (It's NOT for Sale)

Notice anything...missing, on this page?

I wish I could say I noticed this myself, but I didn't.  A reader by the name of Ragan pointed out that she went to Vudu to buy the 3D version of "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" since (like many others) she did not manage to get one of the elusive Best Buy steelbook collections.  In one of my previous articles on the matter I mentioned (very passive aggressively) that it was nice to be able to buy the 3D through Vudu at least.  This is not the case though.  When Regan attempted to buy the 3D version, she could not find any option to do after.  After some back and forth with their customer service, they confirmed that they did not have the rights to sell the 3D version (but they could rent).  This is very likely because Best Buy paid a lot of money for the exclusive rights to the 3D version.

Then, of course, they deliberately shorthanded the item, and have made it nearly impossible for people to get the item unless they pre-ordered months ago (and, yes, I WILL be saying something about that at some point).  So, I'm sorry guys, but for those who have one of the two devices Vudu streams 3D content to want to buy "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" in 3D, I'm disappointed to report you will only be able to rent it, NOT buy it!  This just keeps getting better and better...

Read more »