0

Should You See "Aladdin" in RealD 3D or IMAX 2D

Labels: , ,


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.

2

James Cameron Finds Perfect Way to Release "Alita: Battle Angle" on BluRay 3D

Labels: , ,


It can't be easy for fans of "Alita: Battle Angle" right now.  On one hand, the movie fared much better at the box office than many were expecting it to.  Instead of outright flopping, the movie more or less broke even, paving the way for a potential sequel to move forward.  On the other hand, this happened during the Disney/Fox buyout, which means it won't be up to Fox to greenlight another sequel, but Disney, a company who has more than enough billion dollar franchises, and might not be interested in trying to nurture one that they didn't personally have a hand in.  What was equally stressful for fans was the MIA BluRay release, which (by many accounts) should have been out now.  We were in a situation where we were wondering if we would get the movie on disk at all, much less the 3D version that James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez had carefully crafted (which resulted in a spike in 3D ticket sales for the first time in years).  After all, if Disney seemed apathetic to a sequel to 'Alita' we KNEW they were apathetic to releasing a BluRay 3D of the film.  BluRay 3D's is a market Disney has pretty much gotten out of both in the states AND internationally (with the exception of the Marvel and Star Wars movies)!

So imagine my surprise and delight when we not only got a date for 'Alita' on BluRay, but that we found out the 3D version WOULD be getting released as well!  What's more, it looks like it will be in every store across the nation for as long as need be, because the disk is being bundled with the 4K UltraHD bundle, which means supplies will be plentiful!


Now, the funny thing is, this isn't the first time this has happened.  Early into the UltraHD lifespan, Sony was particularly aggressive about bundling 3D disks with 4K copies at stores.  Sony was still making 3D TV's and wanted to keep the momentum alive.  It made more sense because the UltraHD bundles were for hardcore film fans who were willing to pay a premium for the best versions of the movie available.  Eventually Sony and other companies dropped this, and to this day the few companies that still make 3D disks have opted to make limited quantity BluRay 3D bundles rather than put the 3D disk in the UltraHD package, which would make more sense it would be a product that caters to two niche markets for a minimal extra cost.  Chances are 'Alita' was a compromise as both Cameron and Rodriguez have stressed that the 3D version is THE way to see the movie, and likely demanded such a release in their contracts!  As a compromise, Disney is putting the disk in the UltraHD bundle.  The funny thing is, this is how they should be doing this for ALL movies!  Sure, it would only add a few hundred thousand extra sales, but since Warner Bros. and Paramount are still doing this, it is clearly a profitable practice.

By bundling the movies this way they can make both versions available to everyone who wants them, it provides more value for the dollar, and it makes the film makers happy.  Heck, when you look at the cover the 3D version is highlighted as the main selling point, so Cameron is VERY well aware of who's REALLY going to be buying this disk!  While it is sad this isn't a normal practice for all studios, we are at a point where I'm happy that it is happening at all.  Also, it's nice that IMAX is setting aside a few showtimes each week to show "Aladdin" in IMAX 3D, so the fact that companies are doing anything with 3D shows that it still is a profitable format.  Either way, I'm going to be buying a couple copies of this movie: One for me and one as a gift.  I want to support this release financially, and I would love to see a sequel, so buying this set supports both.  It's something I highly recommend everyone do if they love this (surprisingly fun) little $180 million dollar blockbuster.

0

"Avengers: Endgame" WILL Be in IMAX 3D (But You Have to Find it)

Labels:


There has been good reason to worry that "Avengers: Endgame" wouldn't be screened in IMAX 3D.  Despite the format having to VERY big 3D successes with "Aquaman" and "Alita: Battle Angel," the company opted not to show "Captain Marvel," "Dumbo," the upcoming "Shazam," or (worst of all) "How to Train Your Dragon 3" in 3D.  Despite the fact that all movies had 3D trailers that looked awesome playing in their theaters, all of them went out 2D only (except in maybe a FEW locations I am not aware of).  It's been so bad that I - one of the biggest IMAX fans to the point that I own stock in the company - haven't been going to see many of these movies in IMAX at all.  I was afraid that I would have to choose once again between seeing the movie on a standard 3D screen over a really big 3D screen.  That would have been a shame because "Avengers: Endgame" was filmed 100% with IMAX cameras, and as such the footage looks best on a true IMAX screen.

Thankfully, we have a good news/bad news situation.  Tickets for "Avengers: Endgame" have gone on sale today, and the good news is there ARE IMAX 3D screenings available!  The bad news...


...if that most theaters are only showing once a day.  The worse news is that they are usually during times that will be inconvenient for most viewers.  11:00am and 10:30pm might work for someone like me (who basically makes his own schedule), but for everyone else that might be more difficult.  Also concerning is the fact that there is no certainty that these showings extend beyond the first week.  Which means unless you see it during the first week (which might be difficult considering how popular the movie is certain to be), you might not see it at all.  It's a far from ideal situation, but we are at the point where 'some screenings' are better than 'no screenings.'  I don't know why IMAX is playing this game.  A movie like "Avengers: Endgame" is certainly popular enough that screenings would be sold out regardless of the format, so why not show the version that is better suited for the film (and brings in more money for the theater)?

I can't answer that one for you, but at least I can report that screenings will be available, and that I guess I'm going to go buy my tickets later.  It's not a movie that I would normally rush to see on the opening weekend, but I REALLY want to see this in IMAX 3D, and I'm afraid I won't have the chance if I miss the opening weekend!

0

"Alita: Battle Angel" Delivers a Holiday Miracle: A Genuine 3D Hit

Labels: ,


"Alita: Battle Angle" is (if nothing else) something that the cinema world hasn't really seen in a few years: a genuine 3D success story.  Yeah, the movie itself could have done better on opening weekend.  And yeah, it may struggle to make enough money to justify its existence (never mind justify a sequel).  The one thing that is not in dispute is that the film is a strong 3D success story, and shows that when done right, audiences WILL turn out to see it!  IMAX was pretty much forced by producer James Cameron to show the film in 3D.  While they may have done that begrudgingly, it resulted in them capturing 15% of the overall ticket sales.  For that matter, in regards to regular screenings, it has been reported that 3D showings accounted for up to 66% of tickets sold.

It was so crazy that when I went to buy tickets to see it again, one of the 3D screenings was sold out on a Tuesday.  This hasn't happened in so long I had to laugh.  I have a friend of mine who I debate the merits of 3D (and really anything) in film with frequently, and he always jokes "well, maybe James Cameron will be back to save 3D again?"  Now, he has said this in a joking manner, and he was probably referring to future 'Avatar' movie, but now we have "Alita: Battle Angel" tearing up the 3D world, and while Cameron didn't direct the film ("3D God No. 4" Robert Rodriguez did), with his name on it, it appears he's blazing the trail once again.  Its starting to make me wonder how many times this man has to show Hollywood that 3D isn't dead.  That if you make the right movie and use the format correctly, not only will people love it (and despite how the critics feel, there's no doubt most audience members fell over themselves), but they will GLADLY pay extra to see it!

I'm wondering how many people were regretting not picking up a 3D TV after seeing this.  Clearly this would have been something worth having at home, right?  Heck, this might even suggest that if you make the 3D seem like an event in the marketing, it will pay off if you actually deliver that experience.  I'm not certain what the future of "Alita: Battle Angle" is.  I'm not sure if word-of-mouth will be able to make this successful enough to justify a sequel.  Even if it does, I'm not sure Disney would be interested in one (they will likely own Fox by then).  However it has shown that 3D is not dead as many proclaim, and it is successful enough that many IMAX screens will be skipping out on "How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World" in favor of keeping this another week.  Speaking of which...I have some things to say about the release of THAT film later this week!

4

"They Shall Not Grow Old" Expands on Super Bowl Weekend

Labels: ,


Many of you will be watching the Super Bowl today.  I will not.  With all due respect to most of the country, I have never been much of a sports fan in general, and football fans largely take their game so seriously that the entire event is something I can only step back from and scoff at.  All of the "we won" or "we're going to be the best" as if they are actually doing anything to help the team win is silly to me.  I am more interested in seeing if Maroon 5 performs a SpongeBob SquarePants song during the half time show more than I am who wins the game.  However, I WILL be enjoying seeing Peter Jackson's "They Shall Not Grow Old" in 3D for the first time!  The movie has had three sold out Fathom Events screenings (none of which I had time to see), and despite not getting an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary at the 91st Annual Academy Awards, the fact that it did sell out and has Peter Jackson as a director probably gave the studio a lot of confidence in attracting those who don't partake in the ritual of the 'Big Game' to their screenings.

What's more, the vast majority of the showings will be in 3D and it is being advertised as something you need to see in that format.

Is the movie going to crack the top ten at the box office?  I doubt it.  Even though it premiered at the number nine spot on Friday, it IS a documentary at the end of the day!  One that is based off World War I (a time period that is usually overlooked by the more popular World War II subject).  Also, it has received criticism from critics (myself included I admit) that colorizing the footage and making it 3D actually tampers with history.  I can understand why they would think that.  My last two BluRay's of "It's a Wonderful Life" have color versions available, and despite hearing that they are excellent, I wouldn't dare watch them.  The film is perfect as is and no tinkering is needed as far as I'm concerned.  Granted, that version pretty much exists so that NBC can air it every year and not get letters about why they are showing something in black and white.  While I need to see what Peter Jackson has done with his movie, I believe he is trying to bring interest to a topic that is largely undiscussed by the general public, and he is trying to do so in a way that will catch people's attention (in all fairness, it seems to be working).

People are actually talking about this one and most people I know are planning to spend an extra few bucks for the 3D screening.  That is an admission I have not heard from some of my friends in a long time.  Well, unless they were seeing the movie with me, in which case they more or less had to see the 3D version (ask the group of people who ended up shelling out extra money for the "Spider-Man: Into the Spider Verse" IMAX 3D screening even though I was the only one who cared to see it in that format in the first place).  So even if it isn't a huge box office hit, it is very nice to know that Peter Jackson is still creating art with 3D, and is even making a point to get the public interested in a 3D movie during a weekend where most will be watching TV with colors painted on their face and spilling nachos on the ground when 'their team' makes a stupid mistake that they obviously shouldn't have.  And he's pulling it off with a documentary on World War I.  That is a certain kind of marketing genius I could not have predicted going into the weekend, and "They Shall Not Grow Old" should not be overlooked for that.

0

Eight 3D Films Nominated for 2019 Oscars


Yesterday the Academy of Motion Pictures Sciences reveled their nominations for the 91st Annual Academy Awards.  In total, eight 3D films were nominated (mostly in the Best Animated Feature category).  They are as follows:

Avengers: Infinity Way
Bao
Black Panther
Incredibles II
Ralph Breaks the Internet
Ready Player One
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Solo: A Star Wars Story

It should be noted that "Black Panther" actually made it into the Best Picture category.  The Academy has consistently nominated strong 3D films without actually acknowledging the 3D itself (there is still no Best 3D Oscar...though we could still imagine what that would look like), and many people may be looking at this list and wonder if that's changing.  To my knowledge this is the lowest amount of 3D films to be nominated in five years, so it would be easy to think that Hollywood is cooling on the format altogether.  I would argue that what more than likely happened is that there were simply few visually strong films up for Best Picture (the most visual ones being "Black Panther," "Roma," and "The Favorite," and two of those films have strong visuals mainly because of the ascetics and costumes).

3D movies that get nominated for Oscars are usually big budget blockbusters these days, which is the kind of movie the Academy normally doesn't faun over.  For that matter, the days of film makers like Martin Scorsese, Wim Wenders, and Werner Herzog using 3D for more experimental purposes seems to have cooled for the time being.  Also, despite being renewed for a long term deal with RealD, 3D showtimes are on the decline, and studios might not want to throw too much money into a format that might have a limited appeal (for the time being).  So really, the lack of 3D films getting too many nominations isn't too surprising.  But as we enter 2019, there are still some positive things to take away from today.  First of all, 3D is still a huge part of film, and, as such, is still getting nominated.

For that matter, "Black Panther" is the first 3D film to crack the Best Picture category since "Mad Max: Fury Road" from a few years ago.  Also, it should be noted that while it wasn't nominated, Peter Jackson's "They Shall Not Grow Old" was a fascinating World War I documentary where the film maker took old video footage, colored it, converted it to 3D, and then released it to sold out showings for several special engagements.  I have conflicting feelings about altering old footage that way, but the fact that a documentary was sold as a '3D event' film and actually made a good amount of money in that limited release shows that the format still has life in it.  For that matter, "Alita: Battle Angel" is being heavily advertised as a "3D event" in the previews, so the format is still being played up when the studios feel it can make money.

And yes, one year a 3D film will win Best Picture.  It might not happen this year (I think "Roma" is going to be the big winner), but it will happen, and possibly sooner than we expect.  In the meantime, I will continue to update this blog, write about the format here and there, and see every 3D film in theaters that I can!  Also, I guess I'll be buying "The Grinch" in BluRay 3D next week, because...who the heck thought that Universal would dip back into the format with that movie of all things?!

2

"Mowgli's" Lackluster Release Prove's Netflix's Distribution Model is Broken

Labels:


Dear readers, I have to admit to a mistake a made in a recent blog post: "Mowgli" WAS, in fact, given a limited 3D theatrical release by Netflix that ended last Thursday!  I'm not proud of the fact that I missed this fact.  I probably missed it because I was off in Las Vegas getting engaged, and searching for a 3D release of a film Netflix sprung on me at pretty much the last minute was not something I was keen to keep an eye out for.  I noticed it in time that I could have seen it, but it would have coincided with a birthday get together to see "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse" in IMAX 3D.  Although I certainly had more time to watch the latter in theaters and missed on my one opportunity to see the former, I think I made the better choice in the long run.

"Mowgli" has been getting unkind reviews by critics and audiences alike, with some even using it as a poster child for why we need to get away from remaking classic stories into gritty modern films.  Despite wanting to see it for myself, I suppose I will have to resign myself to the fact that I may just have to wait for a BluRay 3D release from Warner Bros. (which, if such a release happens, I will buy on principle).  Still, even if the movie wasn't worth seeing in any format, it still annoys me that Netflix thought so little of it that they basically dumped it without any fanfare.  If you saw this thing in theaters, you were paying attention more than most, as it was extremely difficult to pin this film down (and this is from someone who managed to track down "Billionaire Boys Club" and see it in theaters).

While this could be seen as a disappointment for 3D fans who are likely not going to be seeing one of the years best 3D experiences on the big screen (if at all), it is also a symptom of what is wrong with Netflix's distribution model overall.  Yes, they made a splash when they premiered shows and movies onto Netflix without first going through the traditional TV or theater channels.  Yes, it was a novel idea at one point that a major motion picture like "Death Note" and "The Cloverfield Paradox" would be available to view without having to pay for a movie ticket.  Dropping a whole season of "Daredevil" at once was really cool.  I remember marking my calendar to watch those things on day one.  Now, streaming has become this disposable thing.  Whether it is a great movie like "Roma" or an average movie like "The Christmas Chronicles," they all have the same value to audiences: $0.00

What's more, these movies are no longer 'events' the way they used to be; they come, they go, they get lost in a sea of movies that only have a postage sized stamp to advertise they are there.  For that matter, what is the difference between a big budget spectacle like "Bright" and the new Coen Brothers film?  Yeah, one of those movies is SIGNIFICANTLY better in terms of overall quality, but how do audiences know that when the price of admission (and the amount Netflix is willing to push it) is the same?!  Heck, what does Netflix even have to gain from promoting their original movies when they don't bring in any money?  Do these convince people to keep their Netflix subscriptions?  I don't know a single person who felt that an original movie like "Mowgli" was something to factor in when deciding to keep their Netflix accounts, but you can sure bet "Friends" leaving the service got people upset.

So much so, that Netflix was quick to shell out $100 million to keep the series for a couple more years.  That show is still popular because it spent years getting people attached to it, and thus people get upset when it almost went away.  If it does go, you can still get the series on DVD and BluRay, which makes that show powerful.  I can't think of a single Netflix show or movie that has this kind of pull.  Not "Mudbound."  Not "Orange is the New Black.'  Not "House of Cards."  Maybe "Daredevil," but they got into a pissing match with Disney and cancelled all their Marvel shows, so so much for that helping at this point.  The point is, Netflix needs movies like "Mowgli" to be in theaters.  They need them to be on disc.  They need Netflix to be a brand that is known for making quality movies, not just delivering content in a cheap and convenient way.

That means embracing movie theaters.  That means physical media.  Even Amazon and YouTube realized this.  Amazon releases all their stuff in theaters because they want it to be taken seriously.  For that matter, YouTube Red was itching for a hit, and decided to hold a theatrical premier for the first two episodes of "Cobra Kai," the one show on their platform that can be pointed to as a genuine success.  Thankfully, Netflix does have the chance to get out of their bubble as they prepare for a small theatrical release of Martin Scorsese's "The Irishman," which is set to premier next year.  Hopefully it will be an experience that shows that making people pay for something and getting attached to it BEFORE giving it away for free yields as many rewards as disrupting the industry!

1

Most Upcoming IMAX Releases are in 3D (Will it Last?)

Labels:



I’ve written about it before, but it needs to be stated again: IMAX’s experiment with 2D only films is a complete failure.  Screening films only in 2D did not result in better ticket sales (as was the case with “Blade Runner 2049” and “Ralph Breaks the Internet”).  Neither did only providing a 3D experience hurt ticket sales (see “Beauty & the Beast” and “Venom”).  The only thing that determines whether or not a movie sells a lot of tickets is people’s interest in the film itself.  The format will not dictate anything in terms of sales.  So much so, that I still believe if Disney made a bold move and released “Avengers: Infinity War” in 3D only for the first two weeks, it would have had minimal impact on the films box office prospects.  I’m not actually asking for that to happen (I don’t believe in forcing people to watch 3D films anymore than I like being told I am more interested in 2D films), but I believe watching IMAX’s ticket sales rise and fall on the sole basis of whether or not people want to see the movie in the first place is both a blessing and a curse for fans of the 3D format.

It is a blessing because it shows that a 3D release will not hurt a film, no matter how much the movie sucks.  Where it harms the format is that it also shows that the movie will not be helped much by 3D, because the criteria of whether or not it makes money is based solely on whether or not people want to see it.  3D isn’t dragging the business down, but it’s not pulling its weight either.  For many it exists just to exist, and that’s not where you want things to be.  Never-the-less, the fact that 2D only releases have not saved IMAX from sagging ticket sales is a blessing in the sense that the company is largely going back to releasing movies in 3D for the foreseeable future.  We’ll see if this sticks; the company flip flops on the issue every few months it seems.  “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindlewald” and “Ralph Breaks the Internet” were screening pretty much exclusively in 2D in IMAX’s (the latter of which is a shame, as that movie used 3D to some of the best effect I’ve seen all year), but the upcoming “Mortal City” and “Aquaman” appear to be scheduled for all 3D screenings in most IMAX’s.

The recently added “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” will also show up in IMAX 3D (though this one will have half of its showings in 2D as well).  What’s most disappointing and strange in all of this is that of the three movies, I’m only convinced “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” will do any sort of good business.  The other two movies are likely to get smoked at the box office, because competition is going to be fierce, and tracking shows that the general public aren’t into these movies much.  For that matter, “Ralph Breaks the Internet” and “The Grinch” has been switching back and forth in claiming the number one (and two) spot(s) at the box office for weeks now, yet neither movie showed in IMAX with their (natural) 3D formats.  It’s almost as if IMAX as a company is largely keeping the 3D for movies that aren’t successful on a financial level while releasing the box office hits in 2D only format.  Of course, this isn’t completely the case: ‘The Crimes of Grindlewald’ petered out quickly and “Venom” was a big hit despite itself.

The bottom line is you never know what will be a hit or what won’t be.  You also can’t assume that just because IMAX is passing on a 3D version of a movie, that that means the 3D version is bad.  The sad reality is I don’t think IMAX knows what they’re doing in this case.  Their stock is falling (trust me: I own some) and there’s not a lot to suggest it will turn around anytime soon.  IMAX is the one theater chain that plays the most guessing games with their movie’s formats.  This is because most theaters only have one IMAX screen, but I wish the company would play fair a little bit more.  Present the movie in the best format possible.  Don’t make guesses on how audiences will react to a movie based on whether or not its in 3D or not.  Or just keep the 3D, since most theaters ARE putting it on the back burner, and that makes the IMAX screenings stand out more!  Whatever they decide, it would be best to decide on some consistency, lest this game of whack-a-mole eventually result in more misses than hits.

9

Netflix Drops "Mowgli" in Theaters Unannounced and WITHOUT the 3D Version!

Labels:


Hey everyone, sorry for the late post.  I know, I know, it's been...three months since my last post.  I've been working on other projects and felt that this blog wasn't worth updating anymore.  3D is pretty much on the decline and it's pretty obvious that it's not making a comeback in homes anytime soon.  I was wondering if there was even a  point to complaining about any of this anymore.  I thought it was probably time to throw in the towel and admit defeat.  Then, I discovered something pretty much by accident, that made me realize that even if the fight is a futile one, it doesn't mean I can't talk about it.  So what was the event that got me to get off my butt and update this blog again?

Answer: Netflix has dropped "Mowgli" into movie theaters this weekend.

Seriously, they did.  The film (now titled "Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle") was released unannounced and unexpectedly into theaters on November 29th, with a planned Netflix release on December 7th (three days before my birthday).  Seriously, here's the trailer:


If this has you confused, it may be because the last time I wrote about this I announced that Warner Bros. had sold the movie rights to the streaming giant and that the winter wide release was cancelled.  Now, it should be noted that this choice made me skeptical of the movie in general.  After all, when Paramount did this with "The Cloverfield Paradox," it was done in secret, with Netflix announcing during the Super Bowl that the movie would be available to stream immediately after the game.  You can bet that was a big enough deal to get me to stream it right away.  Turns out, the reason for the surprise release was because the movie just wasn't very good.  When I heard Warner Bros. didn't even want to try and recoup their money at the box office (after spending more than $150 million on it) I was wondering what kind of turd we had on our hands.  What made the choice to sell it to Netflix painful is that director Andy Serkis (who most people will know as the actor who played Golum and Cesar the Ape) was planning for this to be an epic 3D event.

He was planning for this so much that whenever people asked him about it, he made it a point to tell them to see it in 3D.  It was the only way to truly experience his vision.  Netflix has never done anything for 3D before (see how "The Little Prince" fans got ripped off when they premiered the movie straight to streaming), and seeing a big budget movie on a TV screen first is going to compromise even a 2D movie.  However, Netflix promised they had taken this into account.  They bragged about how the movie was going to be released in March of next year so that people would be well aware of it.  They insisted that an IMAX 3D release was coming so that people could see Serkis vision "as he intended it to be seen."  They promised they would treat the film with respect.  Now, before we continue, I need to be honest about my conflicted feelings about Netflix (and take a moment to note that I did do some consulting work with them for a period of time): I don't feel they are destroying movies, but I do feel like they are cheapening them.

On one hand, their commitment to unique projects is commendable.  If not for them movies such as "Beasts of No Nation," "Okja," and Guillermo del Toro's upcoming "Pinocchio" adaptation would have NEVER gotten made!  Heck, when studios balked at giving Martin Scorsese of all people $80 million to get his passion project "The Irishman" made, Netflix swopped in and saved the project, and it is one of my most anticipated movies of next year.  The problem I see is that they are only making them for streaming.  These movies are still going to be better on the big screen, a smaller screen does make them feel more like made-for-TV specials, and the fact that it is part of a buffet sends a strong message that they are no more or less special than anything else out there.  That first aspect probably bothers me most as I would have loved to see "Death Note" and "Okja" in theaters.  Yeah, I know there are limited theatrical releases for most of their movies, but most theaters won't touch them because why pay for something that is going to basically be free in a week or two?  Even Amazon knows the value of a theatrical release, and they're making movies for their Amazon Prime service.

The reason the surprise release of "Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle" pissed me off so much (enough for me to come back to a blog I'd all but abandoned) is because it shows that while they are still saving projects from the hell of never being seen or made, they still don't have the artists vision in mind.  For the theatrical release is NOT going to be found in IMAX 3D!  I'd be surprised if the 3D version is anywhere, seeing that it's only on one screen near me, and that's an hour away (and in 2D).  Putting it in theaters for only a week before dumping it online shows even more that they aren't interested in how this movie was meant to be seen, just so long as they have another movie they can put on their service to compete with Hulu and the upcoming Disney+.  This is where their "quantity over quality" rule is so bothersome.  Now, maybe there is more to this story than we know.  Maybe Netflix made these bold plans, but couldn't make any substantial deals with theaters?  It's possible.  I mean, most theaters aren't interested in Netflix movies for many of the reasons listed above, and maybe IMAX themselves saw the final cut of  the film and didn't want it even knowing that they'd have an exclusive.  It's hard to say really.

What I do know is that "Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle," as it is seen in the few theaters right now, is not the movie Andy Serkis made.  The movie that is going to be released on Netflix in a week is CERTAINLY not the movie Andy Serkis made!  At least, it wasn't made to be viewed in either of these formats, and it bothers me that Netflix didn't do more to get that version out there.  It bothers me so much that they are so intent on day-and-date releases, that they purposefully gimp potentially great theatrical experiences because they want to prove to Hollywood that they "don't need theaters" to find success.  Again, the movie has been getting some pretty rotten reviews and this is probably to be expected.  After all, if Warner Bros. felt they had a hit, they certainly would have gone forward with the major release they originally intended.  Selling the film to Netflix shows that it might not be worth watching in the first place, but I would have paid to see a true 3D movie on the big screen again.

Now, I'm not sure I want to see it at all.

Oh, but there is the possibility of it still getting a BluRay 3D release.  See, after over a year of being exclusive to the service, Paramount has announced that "The Cloverfield Paradox" is coming to DVD and BluRay.  This means that these financial deals might not give them ownership rights, just a prolonged exclusive engagement.  Since Warner Bros. is the biggest studio that still sees value in the BluRay 3D market, we may still get to see that version yet.  Or, maybe we won't...honestly, it's hard to tell at this point.

5

Where is "The Predator" in 3D?


Shane Black's "The Predator" officially opens today.  I know that some will point out that tomorrow is the "official" release date, but to be frank, I'm getting tired of pretending that the release date means anything anymore.  Studios have been opening the movie a day early for every release since "Iron Man 3" and in some cases they'll even open the movie two days before the street date if they think it can result in a better opening weekend at the box office.  In my eyes, if there is a showing as early as 7:00pm, it is opening day and NOT a preview!  But that's not what I'm here to talk about...I'm here to talk about the 3D release of "The Predator."  Now, first of all, I do want to say sorry for not keeping up with this blog much these days.  I'm actually working on revamping it behind-the-scenes, and am even looking for contributing writers if anyone is interested (send writing samples to greatmediauniverse at gmail d com).

I have been getting e-mails about this movie though, which has clued me in that many of you still enjoy reading my opinions on such matters, so for that I thank you all very much.  As you heard several months ago, "The Predator" was being converted to 3D.  Even IMAX was advertising that it would be an 'IMAX 3D Experience' (though they've changed their tune about that several already).  Yet when the movie opens today you will not find any 3D showings.  All the IMAX screenings will be in 2D.  Even if you go to see a 4DX screening there will be no 3D effects (which defeats the purpose of the moving seats and show effects if you ask me).  Many are wondering why this is the case.  Are theaters finally pulling 3D from all their theaters?  Is this the industry "pulling the trigger" (as some would say)?  No, it's not.  Here's the reason you won't be able to find "The Predator" in 3D when you go to the theaters this weekend:

The 3D version sucked and the wide release was cancelled.

That's it.  It's no more complicated than there.  There is no conspiracy, there is no mistake.  They spent time on the conversion, finished it, and for whatever reason they felt it wasn't of good quality so they decided to make it a 2D only release.  The dwindling 3D ticket sales probably added to the decision not to improve it any more than they already had, but considering how darkly shot and hectic the film moves, maybe this wasn't in the formats best interest.  I've seen what bad 3D can do.  Every time there is a 3D experience that makes a movie worse it makes most of the people who spent the extra money to see it (and have the annoyance of wearing the glasses) vow never to buy another ticket to a 3D movie.  I'm actually for less 3D movies if they result in better visuals.  We are still getting wonderful 3D experiences in theaters: "Avengers: Infinity War," "Ant-Man and the Wasp," "Alpha," and "Wreck-it-Ralph 2: Ralph Breaks the Internet" still show that there is much that can be done with the format.

If the 3D conversion of "The Predator" was so bad that even the studios wouldn't release it to make a few extra bucks, then I'm personally fine not seeing it.  The format is in the worst shape I've seen it in for years.  Only one or two major TV's in America have a 3D viewing option.  Screenings for 3D movies are the worst they've ever been (they might as well be classified as 'special events' now).  Yet, there are some highlights.  As noted before, there are still several movies that are being released every year that take great advantage of their 3D format and continue to sell a significant number of tickets on opening weekend.  Many theaters have renewed their deal with RealD for another eight years, committing to almost a full decade of 3D movies as a result.  For that matter, 3D ticket sales are up thanks to subscription services like Sinemia and AMC Stubs A-List including the formats as part of their package.

Yes, the cancelled 3D release of "The Predator" is bad on the surface.  In the long run though, it might be better to keep mediocre experiences in the vault.  Maybe when TV manufacturers decide to give 3D another chance with their glasses free TV's the studios can put a little more polish on these versions and release them as new content for them.  Right now though, enjoy "The Predator" in 2D.  It's not the worst thing to do and there is no greater conspiracy.  In fact, on Tuesday, I'll write about a real story about BluRay 3D that is far more positive and gives me hope that the format isn't dead and neither is the demand.  It's just laying quietly like a tiger, waiting to pounce.  THAT said...if you REALLY want to see "The Predator" in 3D, you can do so over at the TLC Chinese Theater as well as a VERY select amount of theaters! So, I guess the silver lining here is that it wasn't completely cancelled.

2

Top 10 Worst BluRay 3D's to Own

It took a little while, but I finally made a YouTube video for those bad BluRay 3D's.  The one's that sometimes makes you go "you know...maybe 3D going away wouldn't be the worst thing to happen."  I kid, of course, but these movie really are pretty bad.