Where is "Ferdinand" in 3D? (Hint: Blame "Star Wars: The Last Jedi")

"Ferdinand" is the new family comedy from Blue Sky Studios that opened this weekend to pretty decent reviews and two Golden Globe nominations.  Yeah...really!  While not being advertised on any of the posters, it WAS made in 3D, and the trailers even did a good job showing off some really nice 3D effects and making it clear this is the format to see it in!  Yet (as some readers have said on my Facebook page) they are having a difficult time finding the 3D version.  Some didn't realize it was supposed to be in 3D, but the movie goes so much out of it's way to BE an effective three dimensional experience, that most have figured out what format the movie is really supposed to be seen in!  So, the question many have is this: If "Ferdinand" was meant to be in 3D, why can't I find it?  Was the release cancelled?  No, I can assure you it wasn't.  It is playing in 3D in my area...though only at a couple of theaters, and very few show times.

Are theaters prejudice against family films?  Is this a '3D is dead' thing?  The answer to all these questions is no, no, and no.  Honestly, this isn't so much a '3D is dead' thing as it is a...well, 'it's not 'Star Wars' so screw you' thing.  I'm sure most of you are aware that "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" hit theaters this weekend (and is on it's way to a $200+ million dollar opening).  It's such a big deal that I'm starting to think the reason my blog numbers aren't very good at the moment is because I'm not writing about it (and if I did it would likely get swallowed up in all the other articles being written on the movie).  Honestly, I'm sort of impressed people brought up their difficulty in finding "Ferdinand" in 3D at all.  But the sad reality is that while "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" might be a good movie, the franchise is (on a whole) VERY detrimental to the movie business!  I know it's not the movies fault that everyone and their mother wants to see it, but this is a franchise that is so huge, it swallows the industry whole whenever a new installment comes out.

It commands over 4,000 screens.  People don't see other movies.  The Walt Disney Company is making HUGE demands on theater owners in order to make sure NOTHING pushes it off screens for a whole month!  Theaters are getting more wary of showing too many 3D movies, so they limit screen time to just a few screens a day (and guess what movie gets to use those screens).  It doesn't matter if people were still seeing "Coco" in RealD 3D; 'Star Wars' is in town, so get that much loved, highly original movie off the screen ASAP.  Oh, you mean you've got all these great movies like "The Disaster Artist," "Lady Bird," and "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" in theaters?  Well, see them before 'Star Wars' kicks them out of town.  I understand that people like what they like, but it is so frustrating that every two Decembers the whole world basically acts as if there is only one movie worth seeing (and seeing again, and again, and again, and again...).

The obsession with this franchise really is unhealthy, and it made me want to pass on the movie altogether (though I didn't do that, so, you know, part of the problem and all that jazz).  What was I talking about again?  Oh, yeah, "Ferdinand."  Anyway, it's a cute movie.  Nothing revolutionary, but it is cute, and it's more than worth seeing in 3D if you can find it.  It's a shame you are unlikely to find it, but hopefully those of you reading this who want the opportunity to see it this way will have the chance to do so.  And, yes, I will mention that "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" is a GREAT 3D experience!  I have to say that to be fair.  It's just a shame "Ferdinand" got screwed by it's mere existence.

Read more »

"Despicable Me 3" BluRay 3D Silently Cancelled (But "Blade Runner 2049" is Coming...Really)

The holiday's are a fun time for me.  Never-the-less, they are also hectic and chaotic as well, leading me to sometimes gloss over things that I really should be paying more attention to.  Several months ago Universal Studios announced "Despicable Me 3" to be coming out to BluRay 3D along with all the other versions.  This didn't surprise me as Universal has been very consistent in releasing their titles in 3D in America, and all the previous films were released this way as well, so I figured there was nothing to worry about.  I might have even forgot to report that it was coming out at all, which goes to show how much faith I had in ultimately receiving the product.  I should have learned by now that nothing is a sure thing, and despite being announced to be released, "Despicable Me 3" hit store shelves last week without a 3D version to be found.  I was able to find an import of it at Zavii...however, it is region B locked, and thus won't work on my Xbox One.

Chances are I will still buy it as I am currently trying to hack my LG player to play region B disks, but until I figure that out, I guess this is going to remain one of those "theater exclusive 3D experiences."  I'm not sure how much of a huge loss this is since the movie is pretty unremarkable in every sense of the word, but the fact that this is Universal who is passing on pressing the disk should give fans in America pause for concern.  After all, the three big 3D content providers in the states for the past few years have been:

1. Warner Bros.
2. Universal Studios
3. DreamWorks Animation

DreamWorks seems to have temporarily gotten out of the 3D game (I can't even find an import of "Trolls" or "Captain Underpants: The First Movie" on BluRay 3D) while Warner Bros. continues to be the biggest supporters.  But if Universal has caved then I have to wonder how much longer Warner will remain loyal at this point?  Although, that said, another news item I am late in writing about is that "Blade Runner 2049" WILL be released in BluRay 3D come January!  Yeah, I'm pretty surprised too.  The 3D version was not included when they made the initial announcement a few months ago, the director and cinematographer both stated they didn't like the 3D version, and IMAX made a big deal out of it NOT being in 3D (to very mixed public reaction I would say).  I personally wasn't impressed with the 3D version, and figured I would be ok if we didn't get this one.  But lo and behold it is coming out!

I am...so shocked by this I am actually laughing.  It does go to show that Warner Bros. is truly the biggest supporter of the format, and I really need to send someone over there a fruit basket or something as a small token of gratitude.  I might not have been that impressed with the 3D conversion, but I'll be damned if I am going to pass up buying it when Warner Bros. so clearly has very little reason to release it.  I know the market for BluRay 3D is limited, but Warner knows there is a market for it none-the-less, and they appear to be supporting it through thick and thin.  As for "Despicable Me 3"...*sigh* I REALLY need to learn how to hack something so I can watch these disks!

Read more »

"Coco" Opens in Select IMAX Theaters Today (But Not in 3D)

First, the good news: IMAX is bringing Pixar's critical hit "Coco" to select theaters today.  Now, the bad news: It's not going to be in 3D.  The worst news: The few theaters screening it are pretty much doing so with early showings, so if you have a 9-to-5 job...well, you're plain out of luck.  I'm not certain why there is no 3D screening of "Coco" in IMAX, but there appears to be a trend of animated movies not being in IMAX 3D despite being tailor made for the format.  Will it sell any more tickets without 3D?  Doubtful, but for some reason this is the way things are.  It should be noted that - unlike "Justice League" - "Coco" is 100% improved by the 3D experience, and I can easily recommend it over a bigger screen.  However you decide to see it though, it is an excellent film and I hope you enjoy it.  Oh, also, the "Frozen" short before the movie is actually more a featurette that lasts 21 minutes, so don't walk out in confusion.

Read more »

IMAX Ditches "Justice League" in Favor of Re-runs of "Dunkirk" and "The Polar Express"

Whatever hopes you had for "Justice League" being a huge success, I would put those desires on hold for a very, very long time as the movie is more than a certified flop at this point.  It went on to break records for the lowest grossing release of the entire DC Extended Universe.  The movies as they stand are currently dead and there is virtually no hope of the thing being salvaged at this point.  "Justice League" is going to do to superhero movies at Warner Bros. what "Batman & Robin" did for that franchise: Stop it dead in its tracks while the studio takes a break from it and reevaluates what to do ten years down the road.  I know this isn't how people wanted things to turn out.  Fans wanted a good movie.  The studio wanted a profitable franchise.  IMAX wanted a movie with enough legs that it could carry through the holiday season until "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" dropped.

In short, everyone got screwed here, and there are no winners, only losers.

While there have been countless articles highlighting the failures of the movie, we're going to focus on the fact that IMAX got stuck with a movie that didn't sell tickets.  Most of the theaters were played to empty screenings.  There is no possible way the company can hope to keep this around for three more weeks.  So, many theaters will be getting rid of it.  Theaters that are equipped to show 70mm movies will (ironically) be bringing Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" for an undetermined amount of time.  Many IMAX's will be going back to 2004 and reviving "The Polar Express" for the holidays (easily one of 3D's biggest cinema success stories).  While there has been no announcement, don't be surprised if "Thor: Ragnorok" makes a surprise come back as well.  This, just goes to show, not to put too many eggs in one basket, because the basket may break and crack your eggs.

Now, I'm typing this story for two reasons.  The first is that it is always nice to see "The Polar Express" return to IMAX 3D.  I've seen this movie on the really big screen almost every year for the last decade and a half, and I even have watched the BluRay 3D a few times.  Despite "Avatar" getting all the credit, it was really "The Polar Express" which showed how good and successful 3D films could be, as the film opened to low box office, only to have IMAX 3D showings being sold out on a daily basis.  The other reason I'm reporting on this is because this is another spectacular failure for IMAX in their '2D only' policy, and if it hasn't been made clear yet that scrapping the 3D doesn't result in more ticket sales yet, then I honestly don't know what will.  Now, I have to stress again that the 3D version wasn't a whole lot better this time around, and I have heard rumblings that Joss Whedon simply felt the 2D version was better (for whatever THAT'S worth to the fans...).

Also, this movie didn't make money in either format, so it's not like having the 3D would have resulted in more ticket sales either.  The point (again) is that IMAX saw sagging ticket sales, looked at "Dunkirk's" success, and deemed that it was probably because the movie was in 2D that it did so well (completely ignoring the 3D successes of "Beauty & the Beast," "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2," and "Spider-Man: Homecoming").  "Dunkirk" did well in IMAX because it was shot with 70mm IMAX cameras and was a good movie.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I took personal issue with IMAX throwing 3D under the bus when they had 3D movies that were actually bigger successes than "Dunkirk."  "Justice League" did not sell tickets even though it was only showing in 2D.  Heck, the only way it might have done well is if it was an excellent movie (although...).  Truthfully, I think IMAX should take a hard look at what they are replacing it with: Movies that take full advantage of the giant screen and the formats with which they were filmed in.

In the new year I will begin a series of articles about what IMAX's strengths were, how they lost sight of their ultimate goal, what their problems are, and what they can do to fix them going forward.  In the meantime...I'm going to enjoy taking my niece to see "The Polar Express" for the first time!

Read more »

James Cameron's "Titanic" to Return to AMC Dolby and 3D December 1

This is more of a brief update, but James Cameron has had a surprise announcement that for a couple weeks only (and exclusively at AMC Theaters) you will be able to see "Titanic" in theaters.  The movie won 11 Academy Awards (including Best Picture and Best Director) and is one of my personal favorite films.  I've seen it three times in theaters: Once during it's initial release, again at a classic screening, and the third time in IMAX 3D.  The movie is magnificent regardless how you view it.  AMC is mainly pushing their Dolby Cinema screens they've been installing, but a few of them WILL project the movie in 3D!  Even though this is widely available on BluRay 3D, for those who might not have had the chance to see it in theaters in this format, now is your chance.

Read more »

Checking Out "Cars 3" European Only BluRay 3D Release

I've got a few real articles to post in the next few days, but in the meantime I DID import "Cars 3" on BluRay 3D in a collectible steelbook edition from Zavii!  Most of the information of this release is in the video, but for those want to know upfront: Yes, it WILL work on American BluRay players!  I decided to test it out on my Xbox One...and then ended up watching the whole movie because it actually is a genuinely good movie.  If you want I'll start showing off import BluRay 3D's more often with information on whether or not they work on American players, but for the time being this will have to do.

Read more »

Should You See "Justice League" in RealD 3D or IMAX 2D?

Here we go again.  I didn't think I would be writing an article like this again so soon after I wrote extensively about "Blade Runner 2049," but it appears that if you are a fan of 3D movies and IMAX movies, you have a choice to make if you want to see "Justice League."  Now, personally, I don't think the movie is worth seeing in any format.  Like, really, truly not worth seeing in any format.  That said, I know there are many of you reading this that DO want to see it, and want to know whether it is worth seeing in RealD 3D or IMAX 2D!  Unlike last time we went through this, I actually managed to see the movie in both formats in the last few days, so I think I can properly judge which version is the best.  And before we continue I need to stress this: I saw "Justice League" TWICE within three days so I could do this comparison 'justice,' so don't let my pain go to waste!

Okay?  Ok...

Unlike "Blade Runner 2049," director Zach Snyder ways always shooting "Justice League" to be a 3D movie.  Granted, he was filming in 2D with the intention of upconversion later on, but he was still framing certain shots knowing that they would have a third dimension down the road.  However, tragedy struck when his daughter committed suicide, and suddenly making a dark superhero movie wasn't a top priority anymore, and so he stepped down as director, and Joss Whedon was brought in to finish the film.  It should be noted that for Synder this was absolutely the right thing to do and I don't fault him one bit for it.  That is a bit of a wake up call, and if it comes down to family and a movie...you pick family every single time.  That said, when Whedon came onboard there was no way he could really know what Synder was going for, and from all accounts the studio heads weren't impressed with the film as it was coming along anyway, and tasked Whedon with retooling it.

Though Synder still receives sole directing credit, apparently Whedon changed a LOT of what was originally there, wrote new scenes, and even cut whole characters out of the movie!  He added more color.  Also, he wasn't shooting with 3D in mind.  And even if he was there was only a small chance that it would match with Snyder's vision.  That means, when you watch the movie in general, the film is a visual and tonal mess.  It is almost fascinating to watch because you can very clearly tell what scenes are Synder scenes and what scenes are Whedon scenes.  You can feel the differences from sequence to sequence, and there is almost no consistency to the final project.  This, I'm sorry to say, extends to the 3D version.  Watching "Justice League" in 3D is frustrating as it is WILDLY inconsistent in quality!  There are scenes when the 3D is popping and everything is working as it should, reminding us of how good 3D can be.

Then you have...the other scenes.  The "other" scenes is where the 3D is jerky, ghosty, and in some cases down right flat looking.  These scenes may be the worst 3D I've seen in a LONG time!  It's "The Last Airbender" and "Clash of the Titans" level of bad!  It is very, very discouraging to see the transfer get as bad as it does at times.  Also, I guess I should note, that even when the 3D is good, it isn't that good.  It's good enough to pass with two action sequences being of especially high quality, but otherwise there isn't much to write home about.  So, while the RealD 3D version of "Justice League" is far from a total wash, it is inconsistent enough to make seeing it in IMAX 2D the preferred option.  Seeing that Warner Bros. is one of the few companies still releasing BluRay 3D's (minus "Blade Runner 2049" of course), I'm hoping they will fix the 3D to be more viewable at home, but we'll just have to wait and see. 

The only thing that doesn't make this a black and white situation is that whether you are watching a good 2D version and a sometimes good/sometimes bad 3D version, the bottom line is you're still seeing "Justice League."  Unlike "Blade Runner 2049," this isn't a movie worth seeing in either format, and it's not like either one really helps or hurts the movie anymore than it already does.  So I think the question of this post is sort of moot when you get down to it.  Whether you see something in 3D or 2D I think we can all agree you want that movie to be good.  And - seeing that MoviePass isn't going to get you into either of these premium formats anyway - it might just be worth passing this one up altogether and save your money for what is surely going to be a far superior theatrical experience in "Star Wars: The Last Jedi."  If you must see this I guess I sort of lean towards IMAX 2D, but the 3D version has enough good moments that neither is a total waste.

Read more »

IMAX Scraps 3D Version of "Justice League"

My earlier suspicions were correct: IMAX has scrapped the 3D release of "Justice League."  Early posters for the movie proudly touted the movie as being an IMAX 3D release...only to slowly get away from that claim and just being advertised as being "in IMAX."  Though this may not be the final listing, so far...

...NO ticket pre-orders are selling any showings of the movie that are in 3D, which means its pretty unlikely there will be any when the time comes!  This contributes more to the notion that IMAX is getting out of the 3D game, but it should be noted this seems like an exception to the rule rather than the norm.  Right now "Thor: Ragnorok" is playing in IMAX theaters with 2D and 3D showings being split pretty much down the middle.  "Geostorm" was shown completely in 3D regardless where it played.  "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" will have some 2D showings, however the vast majority will be in 3D.  Which means, since making the original announcement, "Justice League" will be only the SECOND release to ditch 3D from a movie that has a 3D version available (the first being "Blade Runner 2049" of course).

What is odd about this movie is that originally it was being directed by Zach Snyder, who stepped away from the project after his daughter tragically committed suicide (and my thoughts and prayers are still with him).  Joss Whedon was brought in to finish the film, but in the process has apparently restructured the film, has written lots of new scenes, cut Lex Luthor from the film, and has made the movie more humorous and colorful.  From many accounts, it is now more Whedon's film than Snyder's.  Why do I mention this?  Because while Snyder was making a movie that he knew was going to be converted to 3D, Whedon might not have been.  Granted, he HAS directed 3D films before ("The Avengers" and "The Avengers: Age of Ultron"), but he might have been too busy fixing the movie to worry about how it was going to be presented in 3D!  Warner Bros. does have a conversion in the can, but it might not compliment the scenes Whedon has directed, and it's entirely possible the director told IMAX not to bother projecting the it that was as a result.

Or, maybe, "Thor: Ragnorok" really did sell more 2D tickets than 3D.  Look, it's entirely possible.  I personally think that if you did that you made a mistake because the 3D in that movie was extremely well done and immersive, and it reminded me why I loved 3D movies so much.  There's no solid numbers on that though, so...I can't comment on it.  Right now I'm thinking the lack of an IMAX 3D release has more to do with changing directors than anything.  However, I will do my due diligence and see the movie in both formats and give you my two cents on them, and which one you should see.

Read more »

Where Has the Discussion of "Thor: Ragnorok" Been? (UPDATE: Strikes Over)

It's amazing how fast a situation can turn around.  I wanted to write about the Disney boycott of journalism, but didn't have time to write a proper piece this morning.  I filmed this quick YouTube video sharing my thoughts on the matter with the intention of elaborating later on.  Now the video will serve as a prequel to my thoughts on the situation now that Disney has 'unbanned' the Los Angeles Times from future movie screenings.

So that was this morning.  What's the current status of the boycott?  Well, Disney has officially decided to de-blacklist the LA Times.  In an announcement this afternoon they stated:

We’ve had productive discussions with the newly installed leadership at the Los Angeles Times regarding our specific concerns, and as a result, we’ve agreed to restore access to advance screenings for their film critics.

Alright, so...that's the end of discussion right?  The LA Times can go to Disney movies again, critics pledged a boycott until the decision was publicly rescinded, so everything's cool right?  In my mind, no, things are not alright.  It would have been one thing if Disney publicly apologized for being a bully.  It would have spoken volumes if Bob Iger admitted he crossed a line and pledged not to do so again.  Instead, Disney simply claimed that they discussed their concerns with "new leadership" and have agreed to restore their access to movies.  Really...that's it?  Alright, let's discuss two major problems with this statement.  The first is that I was unaware that there was "new leadership" at the LA Times.  What does that even mean?  Are they talking about management?  I mean, there COULD be new managers...but considering the paper is without controversy except this one issue (with which they have had overwhelming support) it seems odd that the paper would have to shake up management at all!

Personally, I want the LA Times to personally confirm this is true and who the new bosses/leaders/writers even are.  The second problem I have is even if this is true, then the reasons for Disney lifting their ban are actually far, FAR worse!  It gives off the impression that Disney got their way in the end.  They got old bosses/leaders/writers fired (for what appears to have been accurate reporting), new people got installed, Disney lawyers told them what's what, and THEN they agreed to let them back into their movies!  This doesn't bother anyone?  Not one?  I mean, for the record, I think the Disney's explanation is total bullshit (sorry mom, I could be in legal trouble if I use the nicer word...seriously).  I don't believe the LA Times has new faces overseeing the business.  I don't believe the LA Times agreed with any of Disney's assertions (the lack of retraction speaks volumes in that area).  I believe Disney realized this was an unwinnable battle and a potential public relations disaster.

They have awards to win.  They have Star Wars to push.  They have a Best Animated Feature Oscar that they have had a monopoly on for YEARS (and they sure as heck aren't giving it up to "Loving Vincent" or "A Silent Voice")!  The critics weren't going to back down and in doing so became supported in ways they hadn't been for a long time.  Dare I say it, the critics were even relevant for the first time in years these past few days.  They had no reason to back down.  That wouldn't be a big deal for Disney in and of itself though.  What really did it was that the critics guilds jointly disqualified Disney's films, thus cutting out the first phase in what award bloggers refer to as "The Whisper Campaign," and not having that could cost movies like "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," "Coco," "Queen of Katwe," and the various Marvel movies early ammo for the big awards.  Also, what if the Hollywood Foreign Press Association decided to join the boycott?  They support free press and (more importantly) run the highly successful (for some reason) Golden Globe Awards.  A shut out there could be devastating, so Disney likely didn't want it to get to that point.

They couldn't just admit any wrong doing though.  That would look bad on the company and Iger (who is considering a presidential run when his contract with Disney expires in 2019), so this (likely) bullshit story about new management was created and the ban was lifted, and Disney is hoping things go back to normal.  What's concerning is that if some articles are to be believed, the critics won this round.  I can say with safety and a straight face they did not.  If the critics and the guilds let Disney enter the awards race they have lost.  Disney still walked over everyone, tried to destroy the ethnics of journalism, and got to make up their own story and walk away scot free.  You can write your own happy ending in the movies, but this is real life, and Disney can't be allowed to do that.  I believe the shutout from awards needs to stand (and be expanded to bigger awards, if necessary).  The story that the LA Times has new leadership needs to be confirmed or denied in detail.  If it's true, Disney AND the Times needs to be held to the fire as these "discussions" could be a HUGE conflict of interest in the industry!

If the story of the times getting new management is not true, Disney needs to be publically questioned for slander.  In any scenario the Mouse owes the industry and apology that at least sounds sincere.  Otherwise there is no lesson learned, and the company will go back to their bullying ways and revisionist history.  I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out, but in my eyes the story isn't over by a longshot.  If it is then it will be the most depressing cop out in journalism I've seen in a long time.

Read more »

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

After more than a couple weeks of being out in theaters, I was finally able to get away from family obligations and government paperwork to see "Blade Runner 2049" a second time.  While I have not written a review of the movie due to excessive writers block (as well as potentially rethinking my career as a writer), I will say that this is so far the best film I've seen this year.  It has made me think about things in ways that I never thought I would, it is smart in ways that few movies are, and it is more interesting the second time around.  Everything is beautiful to look at and the acting is appropriately subtle in what is being said with silence.  It is a modern masterpiece and the fact that no one is turning out to see it shows that people deserve the sorry state of the movie business they currently have.  If you haven't seen it yet, I think you are missing out on an experience you may potentially feel is great.

However, should you see it in IMAX 2D or RealD 3D?  That is the question I asked in a previous article, and I've been slowly answering that question throughout the month.  For someone who loves 3D so much that he'll maintain a blog about the format, it is amazing that it took me as long as it did to see it in this format.  However, the preferred viewing method for this film has been one of much speculation, and after some digging I came to the conclusion that the film makers wanted the film to be seen in 2D.  Still, I wanted to see what the 3D looked like, so I bought a ticket to a XD 3D screening late at night (with Auro 1.11 sound to boot!).  I watched the movie and soaked up the brilliant film making once more.  I also paid attention to the 3D, how it was used, and how it affected the overall experience of the movie.  And now that I've seen the movie in both IMAX 2D and RealD 3D I can safely say that the "Blade Runner 2049" in 3D experience is...ok.

Yeah, that's pretty much all I can muster for it.  It's funny to think I've been writing about this topic for months on end, decrying IMAX for not projecting it in the first place, using it as the reason they won't show 3D movies anymore, having them pretty much back off on that claim pretty quickly, and then finding out that key people who made the movie weren't that impressed with the 3D, it's frustrating because it feels like I've been doing all this complaining for virtually nothing. Because what we ultimately have is a 3D experience that does not detract from your enjoyment of the movie, but doesn't add a whole lot either.  This is especially frustrating because this has all the makings of a great 3D experience.  The kind that could have sat with "Avatar" and "Life of Pi" as being one of the best to be had yet.

There are long, slow shots.  Quick editing is nowhere to be found.  There are vast, open spaces to help 3D emphasize the space between the characters and the world.  Many scenes involve airships in the air and flying.  The pacing and sets are placed so perfectly, that there was a possibility for total emersion on the audiences end, to be literally be sucked into the world and in the middle of it all.  If ever there was a movie I look at and think "this would be SOO much better in 3D," this would be it!  It should be it.  It's not though.  The 3D experience I had with "Blade Runner 2049" was one of minor depth in the background, a few pop out effects for passing buildings, but not a whole lot else.  Even the scene where Joe talks to the prostitute hologram (as seen at the top of this article) - a scene that begs to surround the audience and suck them into the world - only sort of pops out (and certainly never surrounds you).

However, it should be noted this is an up-converted job, and those really can only go so far.  So why didn't Denis Villeneuve just film the thing in 3D?  I don't know.  Really, I don't.  The shooting style of the film goes in hand with the techniques of 3D so perfectly I find it frustrating that the director just couldn't see it.  Or maybe he did and just didn't care?  It is true that the best live action 3D experiences have come from directors who are known for being true masters of the art of cinema: Martin Scorsese, Ang Lee, Alfonso Cuaron, Steven Spielberg (alright, that ones animated, but it was SHOT like a live action film), James Cameron, George Miller, and Peter Jackson have delivered the best 3D experiences by far.  I would argue that Villeneuve is in that league of directors and could have pulled it off.  Either he didn't see the potential 3D could bring to the project, or he simply didn't care to.

So, for what it's worth folks, I'm really sorry I made a bigger deal of a 3D version of "Blade Runner 2049" than I had any right to.  I got caught up in IMAX threatening (in a round about way) that 3D experiences in the theaters would be in jeopardy if this movie did well in it's 2D only release.  I got caught up in the lack of BluRay 3D releases we continue to get.  I got excited by the potential of this movie being in 3D.  Ultimately, the experience is average.  Not lukewarm enough to completely ruin the experience, but lukewarm enough that it makes wearing the glasses a royal pain to have to wear.  I hate having to admit this, but I want to be honest with my readers, and the sad reality is that "Blade Runner 2049" is not the 3D experience that was worth dying on a mountain for.  The other sad reality is that is very well could have been, which may be more frustrating than the 3D simply not being very good.

Read more »

"Geostorm" to be Released in IMAX 3D

"Geostorm" is one of those really weird movies that comes along once in awhile that makes one scratch their head and wonder who greenlit it?  Who do they expect to see it?  Who is interested?  Who decided there was enough demand to put it on a really expensive theater and charge $20 a ticket for?  I don't know the answer to any of those answers, but whatever they are, "Geostorm" is a thing, and it's coming to theaters October 20th.  What's more interesting though is that a search for listings on IMAX's official website shows that ALL showings of the movie (thus far) are going to be in IMAX 3D!  Is the banishment of 3D movies over for the chain?  Still too early to say, but I think "Blade Runner 2049" did more damage by only being shown in 2D.  Yeah, that's how it was SUPPOSED to be seen, but this is why the company needed to be upfront about it rather than use the format as an excuse to explain away sagging ticket sales!

Numbers don't lie and the numbers have shown only one thing really: that people will see the movies they are interested in seeing and skip the ones they aren't.  If IMAX wants to turn their numbers around they need to first and foremost focus on getting movies people want to see, movies that take advantage of the giant screen, and get more deals with companies to shoot in IMAX cameras so that more image is available exclusively on their theaters.  Once that's over they might want to open more IMAX screens that are truly giant, own the theaters the screens are on, lower the ticket costs a little bit, maybe partner with MoviePass and Sinemia to attract more people to their screens, and just try to be a better experience all around.  With that said, some people likely want to ask me if I think "Geostorm" will prove to be a hit and show that 3D is still a viable format.  No, I don't believe it will.  I'm not under the impression the movie will do all that good at the box office in general, which may prove my point about 3D more or may prove it less.  We'll just have to see how the stockholders feel.

Read more »